clearinghouse_bannerNasdaq Governance Clearinghouse
Boards Audit Outside Insight Regulation Data Security Q&A ESG Ethics

clearinghouse_headline
boards
Clearhouse
Four Essential Elements for Optimizing Your Board's Meeting Agenda
Publication Date: August 13, 2018

As board portal tools streamline—or in some cases completely eliminate—administrative tasks on the board's meeting agenda, valuable meeting time is recaptured for the board to focus on core fiduciary duties. A well-structured meeting agenda leverages that additional time to maximize productivity in the boardroom.

In this post designed to help Chief Governance Officers build a better governance framework, Joan Conley, Nasdaq Senior Vice President and Corporate Secretary, shares the four essential elements of an effective board agenda.

Each company's optimal board agenda is dependent upon a variety of factors, including how often the board meets, how long the board meets, and how prepared board members typically are. At Nasdaq, we find that these variables can be transcended by making executive and chairman sessions standard protocol for each meeting. We also utilize an extended agenda for every board and committee meeting.

Board meeting agendas at Nasdaq are of course built within the company's secure board portal, where they are accessible to the board (and committee) chairs and archived as part of the corporate record. Nasdaq's playbook for creating an effective board agenda includes the following essential elements.

1. Executive sessions. Nasdaq board members have a standing invitation to hold executive sessions before and/or after the general board meeting. These brief sessions (typically 30 minutes or less) are attended by independent directors only, without the CEO or a corporate governance officer in attendance.

Executive sessions provide an opportunity for board members to discuss internal issues that may have cropped up since the previous meeting, or recent developments impacting corporations on a national or global level. If the consensus is that certain areas of concern or particular interest merit deeper discussion, the directors then share those with the CEO during the chairman session or general session.

2. Chairman sessions. These sessions may be longer than executive sessions, lasting up to 60 minutes. Chairman sessions at Nasdaq are attended by all directors (including the CEO) and by the Corporate Secretary.

During the chairman session, each committee chair reports on matters discussed and issues of importance to the committee. The CEO highlights key areas of focus for the board meeting, and then asks directors to candidly share any current concerns. The CEO is debriefed on topics of interest raised during the executive session so he or she can offer perspective on which items are relevant to the company and should be added to the general session agenda. Committee meeting reports, which are highly confidential, are an important component of the chairman session.

3. Regular session. This general board session includes the participants of the chairman sessions, as well as any executive staff or department heads called upon provide reports and/or updates. The board reviews the corporate strategy, receives updates on strategic initiatives, reviews quarterly or annual financials, and discusses new and emerging issues.

The goal of optimizing the board meeting agenda is to ensure directors receive all pertinent information required to carry out their fiduciary duties, that they have a voice in the decision-making process, and they make the highest and best use of meeting time. The order and length of each session within a board meeting agenda will differ from company to company and even meeting to meeting, depending upon the scheduling needs of the board and topics to discuss.

4. Extended agenda. An "extended agenda" is a highly effective tool that keeps board discussions focused and ensures directors are fully engaged.

The extended agenda is the basic meeting agenda with a script and attendance list embedded into it. This tool is used by the chair as he or she presides over meetings. The script outlines what should take place, the order of meeting sessions, and who should be there. It references specific page numbers of board materials and slide decks, and includes the standard template language required to process through the meeting agenda, including opening remarks, motions, action items, invitations for additional questions, and dismissal of staff between committee reports. The extended agenda is finalized during meeting prep sessions with the board chairman, the CEO, and each committee chairman.

The extended agenda facilitates better board meetings by allowing meeting chairs to participate in discussions without the distraction of keeping Roberts Rules of Order top of mind. Nasdaq's extended agenda is a tool our board chairs find so useful, they often carry it over to other corporate boards on which they serve. It has a tangible benefit to the chief governance officer as well, serving as a robust outline for drafting the board meeting minutes.

For more insights from Joan Conley, read:

Seven Tactics to Engineer Better Boardroom Dynamics >>

Onboarding New Directors: Beyond the Board Manual >>

***
Joan Conley is Senior Vice President and Corporate Secretary of Nasdaq and its global subsidiary organizations and, in that role, is responsible for the Nasdaq Corporate Governance Program and Nasdaq Ethics Program. She also serves as Managing Director of the Nasdaq Educational Foundation and is a Director of the Nasdaq Entrepreneurial Center Board.


 
audit
Clearhouse
Get a Handle on Critical Audit Matters
Publication Date: July 30, 2018

Cindy Fornelli is the Executive Director of the Center for Audit Quality.

Last year, following approval by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) adopted a new auditing standard that significantly changes the auditor's report—with equally significant implications for investors, audit committees and others. The new standard is now moving through an implementation period.

The identification and communication of critical audit matters (CAMs) is the most significant change required by the new standard. If you feel like you don't fully have a handle on CAMs yet, you're not alone. Here are some FAQs to help.

What is a CAM?

The CAMs requirement adopted by the PCAOB is intended to make the auditor's report more informative and relevant to investors and other users of financial statements. According to the new standard, a CAM is "any matter arising from the audit of the financial statements that was communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee" and that:

  • relates to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements, and;
  • involved especially challenging, subjective, or complex auditor judgment.

How will auditors determine whether a matter is a CAM?

The determination of whether a matter is a CAM is principles based, and the new standard does not specify that any matter would always be a CAM. The new standard specifies that an auditor, in determining whether a matter involved especially challenging, subjective, or complex auditor judgment, should take into account, alone or in combination, certain nonexclusive factors (as specified in the new standard), such as the auditor's assessment of the risks of material misstatement, including significant risks.

What impact will CAMs have on the communication between the auditor and audit committee?

The source of CAMs are those matters communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee. PCAOB auditing standards already require a wide range of topics to be discussed and communicated with the audit committee, which in most cases means most, and that it is likely that all of the matters that will be CAMs are already being discussed with the audit committee. However, not every topic that is discussed with the audit committee will rise to the level of a CAM. The PCAOB Board believes there should not be a chilling effect or reduced communications to the audit committee because the requirements for such communications are not changing.

Could a significant deficiency in internal control be a CAM?

The determination that there is a significant deficiency in internal control over financial reporting cannot be a CAM because such determination in and of itself is not related to an account or disclosure. However, a significant deficiency could be among the principal considerations that led the auditor to determine a matter is a CAM. For example, if a significant deficiency was among the principal considerations in determining that revenue recognition was a CAM, then the auditor could describe the relevant control-related issues over revenue recognition in the broader context of the CAM without using the term "significant deficiency."

Will CAMs only relate to the current audit period?

The PCAOB requires the communication of CAMs identified in the current audit period. While most companies' financial statements are presented on a comparative basis, requiring auditors to communicate CAMs for the current period, rather than for all periods presented, will provide relevant information about the most recent audit and is intended to reflect a cost-sensitive approach to auditor reporting. In addition, investors and other financial statement users will be able to look at prior years' filings to analyze CAMs over time; however, the standard permits the auditor to choose to include CAMs for prior periods.

Will the auditor be the original source of information about the company in the auditor's CAM communication?

The new standard includes a note explaining that the auditor is not expected to provide information about the company that has not been made publicly available by the company, unless such information is necessary to describe the principal considerations that led the auditor to determine that a matter is a CAM or how the matter was addressed in the audit. The SEC has stated that they believe that situations where auditors would be required to provide information about the company that management has not already made public would be exceptions, arising only in limited circumstances, and not a pervasive occurrence.

What impact are CAMs expected to have on financial reporting?

Increased attention on CAMs could result in an incremental focus on aspects of management's related disclosures. This could result in discussion between and among management, the audit committee, and the auditor on how CAMs are described, and that may have an impact on management's consideration of the information to disclose in the financial statements related to that particular matter. Early dialogue among auditors, management, and the audit committee will be important.

These questions and much more are covered in a new publication from the Center for Audit Quality (CAQ), Critical Audit Matters: Key Concepts and FAQs for Audit Committees, Investors, and Other Users of Financial Statements. I invite you to read that report and to find more resources on auditor reporting at the CAQ website.

***

A securities lawyer, Cindy Fornelli has served as the Executive Director of the Center for Audit Quality since its establishment in 2007.


The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author at the time of publication and may not be updated. They do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc. The content does not attempt to examine all the facts and circumstances which may be relevant to any particular company, industry or security mentioned herein and nothing contained herein should be construed as legal or investment advice.


 
outside insight
Clearhouse
It's Never Been a Better Time to Open Up the Boardroom: Here's Why
Publication Date: July 24, 2018

Coco Brown is founder and CEO of The Athena Alliance, a non-profit organization dedicated to building the modern boardroom and advancing women in the top ranks of leadership. Alison Davis is co-founder of Fifth Era and an Investor, Board Director and Author.

Time to Open Up The Boardroom

Companies today are surrounded by an unprecedented level of transformation. They're operating in the age of disruptive innovation that we call the Fifth Era - Cloud Computing, IoT, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, Genetic Editing, Blockchain and much more. Furthermore, they're doing it all in a connected digital global marketplace, where customers expect more, share more and talk more—where public opinion spreads like wildfire. This is the hard reality of doing business in the twenty-first century: it's fast-moving, inherently high-tech, and operates in an unforgiving, digital world.

To overcome these modern challenges, businesses must rely on their boards, the highest level of leadership within an organization, to help the CEO steward long-term competitive advantage and relevance. However, despite these technological advances and radically new ways of doing business, most boards today look like they did decades ago, mostly CEOs and CFOs near or having reached retirement.

As a result, much of the board agenda today is focused on topics that were the same focus of the last few decades - operations, compliance, and risk management as well as too often narrowly defined economic value creation goals established within the context of yesterday's products and businesses - rather than the topics that will drive tomorrow's success. Many boards spend little of their time focused on new and emerging external competitive threats, longer term strategy and building innovation capabilities to succeed in this new era. Irrespective of gender, these backgrounds and areas of focus are too narrow to address the key challenges and opportunities that can quickly undermine or boost a business, including innovation and strategy as it relates to technology, employees, customers and community.

It's time to re-think and open up the boardroom. That means widening the aperture to include career experiences beyond CEO and CFO, and widening the age range to incorporate greater exposure to modern business models and innovation. A board with diverse capabilities and more relevant committees is essential to the strategy and innovation discussions that must be had around the board table in the twenty-first century.

Diverse boards are good for business.

By now we know that diverse boards are a competitive advantage. Harnessing the capabilities, experience and perspectives from across a broad range of leaders solidifies a company's place in the world. Yet, many conversations about boardroom diversity tend to overly focus on women, fixating on a supposed pipeline challenge. The hypothesis is simple: there just aren't enough women CEOs and women financial experts out there to fill board seats.

If the board is to be focused on today's operations, financials, compliance and risks, then perhaps this narrower criteria for participation at the board level might be appropriate. Appointing people that have proven themselves is the board model of the past. But we are not just talking about making smart decisions about today's business models and products and services. Companies must also consider this rapidly changing world of new innovations and possibilities and the new and emerging needs and expectations of the customer, the community, and the environment.

Companies need to define their purpose for existing in the first place, and how they offer meaning to human lives—beyond making a profit. They need a diverse board to achieve this broader view.

In his annual letter to CEOs, Larry Fink, chairman and CEO of BlackRock, called on leaders to define their purpose, and to engage their boards in doing so. He stated: "We also will continue to emphasize the importance of a diverse board. Boards with a diverse mix of genders, ethnicities, career experiences, and ways of thinking have, as a result, a more diverse and aware mindset. They are less likely to succumb to groupthink or miss new threats to a company's business model. And they are better able to identify opportunities that promote long-term growth."

CEOs don't last. Boards do.

While the median tenure for a CEO is just five years, board tenures can far exceed that. Board directors may serve for five years, or as long as 10 or 20 years. Indeed, a company's board leadership is more likely to withstand the highs and lows of a company's trajectory, while CEOs will come and go at a much more rapid pace.

At the same time, boards often state that their "responsibility is to the shareholder," yet boards often support CEOs focused on driving or maximizing short term returns, often to a degree that is unsustainable and can hurt the business longer term. Because many shareholders come and go at a rapid pace (a shareholder holds a stock for an average of just four months in the U.S.), the conversation with the long-term shareholder becomes lost. These shareholders, for example pension funds investing for their ultimate clients' retirement accounts, or parents investing for children's college education, are seeking solid long-term returns. They don't want returns that come with a heavy social and societal cost that will hurt them and future generations. Such shareholders are relying on the board of directors, even more than the CEO, to oversee the long term success and sustainability of the returns.

And so, boards, not just CEOs, must be thinking about a company's future and purpose and meaning for the community.

It's time to widen the aperture.

What if companies today approached board diversity with the aim of crafting a board that is capable of confronting complex threats and embracing (and creating) new and innovative opportunities? Getting more women into board seats is a start. But boards should also evaluate younger board candidates. By looking to roles beyond the CEO and CFO, boards will ensure they are thinking about capabilities and skill sets, not just titles. This may include adding board directors with experience in such areas as talent management, culture transformation, customer experience, digital marketing and more.

When one does open the aperture to these other roles, the gender diversity issue we are trying so hard to address becomes less challenging: women hold 55% of chief human resource officer roles, 35% of chief customer officer roles, and 32% of chief marketing officer roles. Even in the technology realm, women are better represented than they are in CEO or CFO roles (19% of CIOs are women, versus 6% of CEOs and 11% of CFOs).

Finally, consider this: many of the most valuable companies in the world didn't exist 20 years ago. And some businesses that have managed to survive are under scrutiny for reasons one would not have expected ten or 20 years ago. They struggle with issues related to employees, customers, culture, and ethics -- issues not focused on nearly enough in today's boardrooms. If these companies want to be around in another 20 years, they must re-evaluate their board competencies and committees.

It's never been a better time to open up the boardroom.

***

Coco Brown is the founder and CEO of The Athena Alliance. She leads a network of more than 1500 C-Level women, VCs, and CEOs from over 200 companies including Microsoft, Autodesk, Intuit, OpenView Venture Partners, Accenture, Deloitte, and PwC. In just two years, Athena has secured almost 200 board interviews for women, with over fifty boards working with Athena today. Coco has extensive experience in serving as an advisor to c-suite executives and their teams, guiding strategy and execution. Prior to The Athena Alliance, Coco served as President, COO and Board Director of Taos, a prominent in IT Services business serving hundreds of F1000 companies such as Apple, Cisco, eBay, Facebook, and Silicon Valley Bank.


Alison Davis is co-founder of Fifth Era. She is an experienced corporate executive, public company board director, an active investor in growth companies and a best-selling author (Her most recent book "Corporate Innovation in the Fifth Era" profiles the innovation approaches of Amazon.com, Alphabet/Google, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft). She was CFO and Head of Strategy at BGI (Blackrock), Managing Partner at Belvedere Capital, and a strategy consultant at McKinsey and A.T. Kearney. Alison has degrees from Cambridge (MA/BA) and Stanford (MBA). She was born in Sheffield, UK and now lives in the San Francisco Bay Area with her husband, Matthew C. Le Merle, and their five children.


The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author at the time of publication and may not be updated. They do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc. The content does not attempt to examine all the facts and circumstances which may be relevant to any particular company, industry or security mentioned herein and nothing contained herein should be construed as legal or investment advice.


 
regulation
Clearhouse
Meet the Architects of Nasdaq's Next Generation of Regulation
Publication Date: July 16, 2018

Nasdaq is looking forward to the next generation of regulatory technologies and processes that will enhance the integrity and transparency of the markets of the future. In order to ensure it fully leverages its regulatory expertise, Nasdaq is reorganizing its various compliance functions under one umbrella: Nasdaq Regulation.


We recently spoke with Nasdaq Senior Vice President, John Zecca, who is leading this initiative, to find out how this new framework will benefit investors and listed companies.

Q: Why is Nasdaq consolidating its regulatory functions under one umbrella?

A: Regulation has been an integral part of Nasdaq since we introduced electronic trading to the capital markets in 1971. Companies list with us, and investors have confidence in us, because they trust the integrity of our markets. Integrity and transparency in capital markets foster confidence with investors and issuers, deter bad actors and accelerate growth.

This reorganization will elevate our regulatory group to make it easier for Nasdaq's listed companies and investors to reach out with questions, concerns, or tips. We are making it clear to bad actors that our first priority is ensuring the integrity of our markets for issuers and investors—that we are watching and prepared to take action if necessary.

Innovation is also core to Nasdaq's brand, and we are positioning Nasdaq's regulatory team to become the architects of the next generation of regulation. The capital markets are evolving every day: new listing products are in development and technology is transforming transaction and surveillance models. By creating a more cohesive regulatory team structure, we can leverage all of our expertise to better focus on regulatory strategic planning.

Q: How is Nasdaq's regulatory function going to evolve with this reorganization?

A: We made the conscious decision years ago to separate Nasdaq's regulatory programs from its business operations to minimize the potential for conflicts of interest—both real and perceived. That separation will continue going forward.

Nasdaq currently operates seven self-regulatory organizations (SROs) in the United States and we believe there is much to be gained from a more holistic approach to regulation. By virtue of this new framework, our team will have additional opportunities to work more closely together - to share ideas, concerns, and insights - and to ensure that there is no knowledge gap across our markets.

In keeping with Nasdaq's identity as a technology innovator, our regulatory technologists will continue to be critical to the integrity and smooth functioning of our markets. As markets become more automated, technologists become as integral to regulation as lawyers, economists, and accountants. Nasdaq recognized this early on. In fact, Nasdaq was the first market to implement an ongoing internal regulatory testing program to ensure our trading platforms were in compliance with new rules and regulations.

Q: How is the newly-reorganized Nasdaq Regulation team going to benefit investors and companies trading on Nasdaq exchanges?

A: By working more closely together, we will give our SRO regulatory teams more exposure to, and a better understanding of, all facets of Nasdaq's regulatory program. In bringing our regulatory teams and functional areas together, our regulatory team becomes more efficient and more collaborative, and they can focus on regulatory concerns for the future, while staying ahead of the game on technology. We will become smarter and better-informed regulators.

We are also bringing greater visibility of our regulatory group to the public, to act as a deterrent to bad actors. It will be easier for companies and investors to contact the right people with concerns or tips. In fact, anyone with tips or concerns about conduct occurring on our markets should call our new Investigations and Enforcement Hotline at +1 301 978 8310 or email our Investigations and Enforcement Team at enforcement@nasdaq.com.

Q: How else will this reorganization benefit regulation?

A: By giving our regulatory team broader exposure, I want to enable us to think more strategically and focus on new and emerging risks. As the markets are evolving, as new listing products are developed, we've got to change with the times. I want the team to think about what surveillance will be like 10 years down the line: How will automation impact our markets? What do the markets of the future look like? By creating cross-functional teams, we can better leverage the vast resources and broad scope of talent within Nasdaq's regulatory arm.

***

John Zecca is Senior Vice President, General Counsel North America, and Head of Nasdaq Regulation for U.S. Markets. Mr. Zecca previously served as Nasdaq's senior corporate counsel and was responsible for public company compliance and mergers and acquisitions. He is a frequent speaker on market regulation and corporate governance. Prior to joining Nasdaq, Mr. Zecca served as legal counsel to an SEC Commissioner and in the SEC's Office of General Counsel.


 
data security
Clearhouse
10 Ways to Secure the Forgotten Endpoints—Mobile Devices
Publication Date: July 10, 2018

Vijaya Kaza is Chief Development Officer at Lookout, Inc., a mobile security company included in the 2017 Forbes Cloud 100, which recognizes the best private companies in cloud computing.

Did you remember to include mobile device security in your budget? If your company is like the majority of organizations in the world, the priority of your security budget is securing your company's network, data centers, email and endpoint devices such as laptops and desktops. Too often, cyber security plans overlook a significant risk that arises from the organization's new cyber-attack surfaces: mobile devices and tablets.

Mobile devices are rapidly becoming primary enterprise computing devices for employees. In fact, more than half of internet traffic originates on mobile devices. Users likely have access to important corporate data and other cyber crown jewels through their mobile devices. On top of that, by putting the user's two-factor authentication token on these devices, they may become the key to unlocking access to corporate and other critical data including bank accounts, credit cards and medical records as well.

It would be unfathomable to leave corporate laptops and desktops without antivirus software and other endpoint protection mechanisms, yet, that is exactly what the majority of organizations are doing with mobile devices. By largely ignoring the risks they pose, companies are leaving themselves (and in turn, often their customers) unprotected. According to a survey conducted by Gartner, only 3% of enterprises have anti-malware protection on mobile Android devices and only 1% on iOS devices.

When developing a cyber security strategy that includes smart phones and tablets, keep in mind that mobile devices are configured and used differently from other traditional endpoints, and therefore should be secured differently. For example:

  • Mobile devices are widely used by employees outside of the corporate perimeter. This makes traditional perimeter security mechanisms like IPS, firewalls and email security solutions irrelevant in protecting these devices.
  • Mobile devices are often owned by the users. They are unmanaged in most cases, with users choosing which applications to run on these devices. This is in contrast to the corporate issued and controlled laptops, which are often managed tightly.
  • Mobile devices are always connected and on. This makes them more available and susceptible to attacks.
  • Mobile devices have limited battery and CPU. The security solutions that an organization uses to protect laptops and other traditional endpoints are not applicable for these devices.
Mobile devices can be targeted from many different angles:
  • Mobile devices can be jailbroken or rooted into. Bad actors can take control of unprotected mobile devices and circumvent any security measures put in place by the OS vendors.
  • Vulnerabilities in the OS can be exploited. Discovering and patching such vulnerabilities is just as important—if not more important—on mobile devices as compared to other traditional endpoints.
  • Many different types of malware specifically target mobile devices. Malware is downloaded to these devices through seemingly innocuous and legitimate apps that the users willingly download for various purposes. Mobile malware is expected to comprise one-third of total malware by 2019.
  • Even legitimate, non-malicious apps may be collecting too much personal information. Music streaming apps, games, work organizers and social media platforms often access sensitive resources on a user's phone that they are not meant to, including the device's camera, calendar and contacts.
  • Mobile devices connect to multiple public networks. As employees leave the corporate network and connect to various public Wi-Fi networks, their mobile devices are susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks from rogue Wi-Fi access points.
  • Phishing is rapidly becoming a prevalent problem for mobile devices. Sophisticated and intelligently-crafted phishing messages come through various mobile apps like SMS and social messaging, fooling and enticing the users to click on malicious links embedded in them. Users cannot always hover on the links or check the validity of the certificates on mobile devices, making it almost impossible to determine if the links are malicious. This makes phishing a bigger challenge for mobile devices than other traditional endpoints.
These security risks have made mobile devices a prime attack surface for hackers seeking to target the data and networks of enterprise systems. Many enterprises may not be well prepared to deal with these challenges, because most do not invest in adequate measures to protect their systems on the mobile front. If your organization allows access to important corporate data from mobile devices, then these endpoints cannot be ignored in your cyber security plan.

10 Ways to Secure Mobile Endpoints
Once your organization determines the extent of its vulnerability to the security risks discussed above, the following measures can be taken to mitigate mobile threats and secure mobile endpoints:

  1. Define the mobile deployment model of your organization. Do you issue corporate owned devices to employees or do you allow employees to bring their own devices (BYOD model)?
  2. Assess the threat profile and posture of your mobile fleet. How many Android/iOS devices are in your fleet? What OS versions are running on the devices and what vulnerabilities are present in them?
  3. Develop a security strategy for mobile endpoints. Base the strategy on the deployment model, the threat profile and the risk assessment.
  4. Make mobile endpoint security a priority in the cyber security budget. Many cyber security officers feel their budgets aren't adequate. In EY's 2017-2018 Global Information Security Survey of enterprise CIOs and CISOs, 87% reported that they need up to a 50% increase in their budgets, but only 12% expected to receive more than a 25% increase.
  5. Invest in mobile threat defense solutions. The feature capabilities and maturity of these products vary between different vendors in the market. Look for products that offer holistic solutions to each of the potential security attack vectors discussed above, including device, OS, network, application and phishing protection.
  6. Look beyond solutions that offer phishing protection just for corporate email. The email security solutions only filter out potential phishing emails and malicious URLs before they hit the corporate email server, but do not protect against malicious links that may come in through various mobile apps like SMS and social messaging.
  7. Put a strong security and compliance policy in place. A good mobile threat defense solution will identify vulnerabilities that are present in the current OS and send an alert if the OS is out of date or if the mobile device is out of compliance. Incentivize users to upgrade their OS to the latest version and address any compliance violations quickly. For example, block access to corporate data from any mobile device that hasn't been updated to the most recent OS versions or isn't compliant.
  8. Stay current on mobile cyber security risks and solutions. CISOs and Security Steering Committees should review the policies and compliance stance on a regular basis to ensure the organization stays ahead of mobile security threats.
  9. Train employees to defend their mobile devices from bad actors. Conduct mock phishing campaigns and training programs for employees to educate them on phishing on mobile devices.
  10. Partner with a mobile cyber security expert. Chose a vendor to help your organization stay on top of emerging trends and new security threat discoveries and continue to evolve your security strategy.

***

Vijaya Kaza is the Chief Development Officer at Lookout, Inc. Ms. Kaza previously served as Senior Vice President of Cloud Engineering at FireEye, Inc. (Nasdaq: FEYE), and prior to that worked for 17 years in multiple executive and leadership roles at Cisco (Nasdaq: CSCO).

The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the contributor at the time of publication and may not be updated. They do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc. The content does not attempt to examine all the facts and circumstances which may be relevant to any particular company, industry or security mentioned herein and nothing contained herein should be construed as legal or investment advice.


 
q&a
Clearhouse
Nasdaq Talks to. . . T. Rowe Price about Their Investment Philosophy on Shareholder Activism
Publication Date: June 20, 2018

Corporate management teams and boards are under intense pressure to adapt to a business environment that is rapidly and continuously changing on multiple fronts. This rapid rate of change is also driving shifts in investor priorities and tactics: Investors are protecting the long-term value of their portfolios by becoming more assertive and actively engaged with the companies they invest in, particularly in the ESG realm.

As shareholder activism becomes more prevalent in the capital markets, and activist campaigns are more often debated in the public domain, it is increasingly important for companies to understand how their institutional investors manage and respond to these situations. However, ESG issues are not universally prioritized or consistently defined within the investment community, which cultivates fear and uncertainty around activist activity.

T. Rowe Price, a global investment management firm with over $1 trillion in assets under management, proactively addressed this issue by publicly clarifying their investment policies related to shareholder activism. Key message points from T. Rowe Price's Investment Philosophy on Shareholder Activism include the following:

  • Each activism campaign represents a unique set of conditions and should be assessed on its own merits.
  • T. Rowe Price takes a multi-year view when making decisions related to activist campaigns with an objective of sustainable, long-term performance by the company.
  • Proxy voting decisions rest with individual portfolio managers.
  • Proxy contest voting decisions will be shared with both parties in the campaign in advance of the vote, upon their request.
  • Companies are asked to remain open to serious, well-supported ideas for value creation, even if they originate outside the company.
  • T. Rowe Price has adopted internal policies prohibiting investment personnel from attempting to initiate activism campaigns by indirect means, such as pitching ideas to activist investors.
  • Portfolio companies should contact T. Rowe Price directly for the firm's view on any investment or voting matter related to them; activists have no authority to speak on behalf of T. Rowe Price.
By shining a light on the firm's potential actions in managing activist agendas and campaigns, T. Rowe Price has given their portfolio companies—and the activists who may target them—a clear roadmap in dealing with the firm under those circumstances. Public companies, and the capital markets as a whole, could stand to benefit if other major investment firms and asset managers provide a similar level of consistency and transparency in their approach to managing shareholder activism.

We spoke with Donna Anderson, Vice President and Head of Corporate Governance at T. Rowe Price, about the company's investment philosophy on shareholder activism and how clarifying their stance will help their portfolio companies navigate activist investor situations.

Q: What was the impetus behind T. Rowe Price's Investment Philosophy on Shareholder Activism?

A: As T. Rowe Price has grown, and as U.S. style activism has spread to Europe, we kept finding ourselves in situations where it was clear there was confusion—either on the company's part, on the activists' part or within the firm—as to our philosophy on navigating activist campaigns. Our policies haven't changed, but we decided it was time to write them down and share them with the public. We wanted to clearly communicate to our portfolio companies what we believe our roles and responsibilities are, and what they can expect from us, if they find themselves in an activist situation.

We have also increased our disclosure around broad ESG issues in general, to make them more transparent to our clients. We updated our baseline ESG policy and published two other pieces related to ESG this year: an engagement policy and a set of responsible investment guidelines.

Q: The document states emphatically that other shareholders do not have the right to speak on behalf of T. Rowe Price. Does this happen often in activist campaigns?

A: No, I wouldn't say it happens often, but when there's a campaign of some kind there are a lot of voices chiming in, including shareholders, advisors and other investors. Communication can get chaotic and emotional.

At T. Rowe Price, we often speak with both sides in a campaign or proxy contest because understanding investor plans is part of our due diligence in those situations. We want to make it very clear that we are available to our portfolio companies during that time, and that if they hear another party make a statement on our behalf they should confirm it directly with us. We also want to make clear our instructions to other investors: While we may ask a few questions or express a particular viewpoint in meetings with activists, we don't want those conversations to be misconstrued or used out of context.

Q: What is the benefit of sharing voting decisions with companies and investors in advance?

A: T. Rowe Price has always shared voting decisions with the direct parties (the companies and the activists sponsoring proxy contests) in advance of the vote, if they ask us to. There's a message in every vote; we think it benefits management of our portfolio companies to share with them directly how we are voting and what message we are sending with that vote.

Q: Is T. Rowe Price trying to discourage short-term activism by stating the company applies a multi-year timeframe in decision-making related to activist campaigns?

A: These days, it's rare to find an activism campaign that's strictly about financial engineering, at least in our portfolios. Super short-term oriented activism campaigns can't get any traction because they are not going to get the support of long-term shareholders.

We confirmed our timeframe to clarify our decision-making process: We're not looking at the next 50 years, we're not just looking at the next three quarters. We're looking at the next several years, the next business cycle—that's the framework we use generally for our investment research. When presented with two choices, we apply that timeframe in our analysis of which path is likely to create more shareholder value.

Q: Voting independence is a tenet of the T. Rowe Price investment policy. Do proxy advisory firms play a role in contested proxy votes at T. Rowe Price?

A: Our statement about voting independence is not meant as a knock against proxy advisory firms, but to illuminate a unique aspect of T. Rowe Price's investment process: our portfolio managers have autonomy to vote individually.

We value and utilize the research we receive from ISS on our portfolio companies. However, we don't have a standing blanket policy for how we vote in proxy contests. Each contest is analyzed and voted independently in our shop.

We believe that the vote is an asset of the fund, not of the fund company. When one of our portfolio companies is the subject of a campaign of some kind, the multiple owners of the stock within T. Rowe Price—along with appropriate internal advisors and analysts—all attend meetings together to jointly discuss the situation. If multiple T. Rowe Price portfolio managers own a stock and find they ultimately disagree on how to vote, they each have autonomy to represent the interests of their own fund shareholders.

Q: Do you expect other large investment firms to follow your lead on this?

A: No one should be surprised to see an increase in transparency throughout the industry with regards to how and why investors undertake the decision-making processes that they do. It is a growing trend for investors to disclose more, particularly related to ESG issues. I can't speak for the motivations of other firms, but at T. Rowe Price we are experiencing heavy demand from our own clients for case studies, examples, and engagement stories.

Q: What is the most important takeaway for companies that may be concerned about becoming a target of an activist campaign?

A: Again, it's about direct engagement with shareholders. Companies are better off getting shareholder sentiment directly from their shareholders, rather than listening to advisors who may have a vested interest in scaring boards.

The advisory community has grown tremendously in recent years to the point that there is now an unhealthy balance of voices warning boards. Law firms, governance consultants, and others are injecting a level of fear in companies that is sometimes out of proportion to the probability they will be targeted. We meet with companies that surprise us when we hear how nervous they are about shareholder activism, because their risk of being targeted is so low they shouldn't spend much time worrying about it.

Don't assume anyone else can accurately tell you what your shareholders are thinking. Let us speak on our own behalf.

For more information, read:
T. Rowe Price's Investment Philosophy on Shareholder Activism >>
T. Rowe Price ESG Integration: Guidelines for Incorporating Environment and Social Factors >>
T. Rowe Price Engagement Policy >>

***

Ms. Donna F. Anderson, CFA serves as Vice President and Head of Global Corporate Governance at T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. Ms. Anderson leads the policy-formation process for proxy voting and T. Rowe Price's engagement efforts with portfolio companies. She also serves as a specialist for incorporating ESG considerations into T. Rowe Price's investment research process.


The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the contributor at the time of publication and may not be updated. They do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc. The content does not attempt to examine all the facts and circumstances which may be relevant to any particular company, industry or security mentioned herein and nothing contained herein should be construed as legal or investment advice.


 
esg
Clearhouse
Strong ESG Practices Can Benefit Companies and Investors: Here's How
Publication Date: June 5, 2018

Veteran board member Betsy Atkins presents a compelling argument for proactively addressing ESG issues through formal corporate governance policies.

Environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues should be a top concern of corporate management and boards. There was a time when a public stance on ESG issues was a public relations tactic. However, in today's rapidly changing business climate, attention to ESG issues is becoming critical to long-term competitive success.

Major institutional investors recognize this and are making it clear that they expect the companies they hold to take a proactive approach to ESG policies and messaging. In his annual letter to CEOs, Blackrock's CEO Larry Fink wrote "a company's ability to manage environmental, social, and governance matters demonstrate the leadership and good governance that is so essential to sustainable growth, which is why we are increasingly integrating these issues into our investment process." During the 2017 proxy season, State Street Global Advisors (SSGA) put this ethos into action by voting against the re-election of directors at 400 companies that SSGA said failed to make any significant effort to appoint women to their all-male boards.

The advantages of proactively tackling ESG issues go beyond appeasing institutional shareholders and creating a good public relations story. A robust ESG program can open up access to large pools of capital, build a stronger corporate brand and promote sustainable long-term growth benefitting companies and investors. Here's how:

1.   Strong ESG programs can increase stock liquidity.

Individual and institutional investors alike are investing massive pools of capital in corporations that proactively govern and operate in an ethical and sustainable manner. Sustainable and impact investing is actively growing at double-digit rates. In fact, according to the US SIF Foundation, total U.S.-domiciled investments using sustainable, responsible and impact (SRI) strategies, reached $8.72 trillion, an increase of 33 percent from 2014 and a 14-fold increase since 1995. That represents about one of every 6 dollars under management.

Investment research and consulting firms like Sustainanalytics and MSCI have developed indices that measure and rank companies based upon ESG criteria relative to their industry peers. The investment funds and ETFs that benchmark these indices are raising trillions of dollars to be deployed toward companies that execute sound ESG policies; these are long-term oriented shareholders that can potentially fuel demand for your stock.

Many investment firms are also incorporating ESG evaluations in their portfolio risk assessment, which is a telling indicator that capital will continue to flow towards companies with strong ESG programs and practices.

2.   ESG initiatives can unlock competitive value.

Companies that recognize the importance of adapting to changing socio-economic and environmental conditions are better able to identify strategic opportunities and meet competitive challenges. Proactive and integrated ESG policies can widen a company's competitive moat relative to other industry players.

Starbucks (Nasdaq: SBUX) learned this as they were trying to expand their market share in China. For years after entering that market, Starbucks struggled to gain momentum on expansion. They stumbled upon the answer when they offered healthcare to their employees' parents. Once they did that, sales growth skyrocketed and now Starbucks has 2,000 stores in one of the fastest growing markets on the globe.

Executives who take steps to improve labor conditions, enhance the diversity of their teams, give back to their communities, and take a stand on sustainable environmental policies also strengthen the company's brand. As millennials in particular become employees, consumers, and investors, they take note of good corporate actors and reward them with loyalty.

3.   A proactive stance on ESG issues can keep activists at bay.

Activists have used governance weaknesses as a tool in proxy contests and campaigns against companies for years, but increasingly they are targeting management teams and boards that fail to take a proactive stance on potential environmental or social issues.

Companies that proactively address ESG issues can set the bar for the entire industry and at the same time help immunize themselves against activist intervention. Wynn Resorts (Nasdaq: WYNN) recently embraced their commitment to gender diversity by increasing the number of women on their board from one to four. With a board that is 36% female, Wynn is now in the top 40 S&P 500 companies in terms of female board representation.

If your company does become the target of an ESG-focused activist, don't despair. Activist investment firms and hedge funds are establishing their own ESG funds, such as ValueAct Capital and Jana Partners. Many of these investors are interested in collaborating with companies to develop ESG policies that unlock the long-term value we mentioned above. For example, Jeff Ubben, CEO of ValueAct Capital, recently joined the board of energy company AES Corporation to help continue the company's transition to clean and renewable energy sources (following divestiture of its coal assets).

4.   ESG Investors are "stickier."

ESG investors are values-based investors who are more interested in what happens during the next decade than the next quarter; they understand that change takes time. Investors incorporating ESG into their mandate often work alongside a company to strengthen it, as they are more interested in building long-term value over a multi-year period than in flipping the stock in the near term for a "sugar high."

5.   Companies that espouse strong ESG values tend to attract and retain the best talent.

Millennials care deeply that the companies they work for (and the businesses they support) embrace values that are aligned with their own, and environmental and social responsibility are very important to them. Employees who are passionate about the organization, who are loyal, and who feel valued drive an intangible good will that strengthens the brand of the company and improves the overall productivity of the workforce.

Best Practices

To realize the full benefit of a proactive stance on ESG issues, it's important to adhere to some best practices for benchmarking and strengthening the company's ESG program:

Identify the appropriate ESG criteria for your industry and your company.

When developing an ESG policy framework, companies should not try to be all things to all people. Rather, identify three to five measurable ESG criteria that are material to your businesses and your constituencies, and are aligned with your corporate strategies.

For example, an oil and gas company that is fracking should measure water and waste management and impacts on scarce natural resources. If your business is centered around service personnel as Starbucks is, social training on anti-harassment and racial sensitivity will make consumers feel welcome and strengthen the corporate brand. Wynn Resorts, as a business that delivers premium services to clientele, focuses on employment initiatives to ensure they attract and retain the best workforce: workplace safety and sensitivity, gender equality, a Women's Leadership Forum, and diversity and inclusion. Wynn Resorts also addresses the environmental impacts of their large hotel properties. They recycle 95% of the water they use, and many properties are LEED certified. Wynn Las Vegas just announced a multi-use development, Paradise Park, powered by 100% renewable energy sourced from a 160-acre solar energy facility, making it one of the most environmentally conscious planned developments in Las Vegas.

An effective way to benchmark your company's ESG framework relative to your peers is to research industry rankings within a major sustainability ranking index. There are a number of nonprofit global advocacy organizations that identify and rank corporate ESG programs:

These organizations, as well as ESG advisory companies like Sustainanalytics and MSCI, analyze a broad range of criteria for each industry, only some of which include: climate change impacts, natural resource scarcity, supply chain management, labor practices, political contributions, board composition and workplace diversity and inclusion. The influence of proxy advisory firms like ISS and Glass Lewis over institutional investors has grown in recent years, so reviewing the governance scores they apply to your company can be another useful benchmark.

Pursue inclusion within relevant ESG indices.

As mentioned above, inclusion in ESG index funds and/or ETFs can boost demand and liquidity in your company's stock. Once your company has identified the elements of its ESG framework, have your general counsel contact three or four ESG funds or ETFs to research their criteria for inclusion (and exclusion). From there, identify which of these indexes map most closely to your corporate strategy and to the priorities of the shareholder base that you believe represent your best long-term holders.

Most ESG pools of capital apply their own unique set of inclusion and/or exclusion criteria to determine which companies to include. For example, to qualify for inclusion in the FTSE4Good Index Series, companies must be working towards environmental sustainability, supporting universal human rights, ensuring good supply chain labor standards, countering bribery, and mitigating and adapting to climate change. Companies that have been identified as having business interests in tobacco, nuclear weapons systems, or firearms, however, are excluded from that series.

Tell your story and stay true to it.

Once your company has determined the appropriate criteria for its ESG framework, the next steps are to establish metrics, measure them on a regular basis, and share progress publicly; otherwise, you will be accused of "greenwashing." Companies that are guilty of greenwashing spin a PR narrative of high standards for environmental protections and human rights, but don't walk the talk. Greenwashing is going to become harder to get away with as the SEC increasingly calls for companies to file corporate social responsibility and sustainability reports.

Investors have a number of criteria they use to determine whether a company is greenwashing or truly integrating ESG policies in their business practices. Companies that are truly committed to executing their ESG policies make them a senior management priority of the CEO and general counsel, and tie compensation to ESG metrics. They voluntarily report ESG goals, and progress towards meeting them, to all stakeholders via the annual CEO letter, annual reports, internal corporate communications, and/or annual sustainability reports on the corporate website.

***

Betsy Atkins serves as President and Chief Executive Officer at Baja Corp, a venture capital firm. She is currently on the board of directors of Wynn Resorts, Schneider Electric, Cognizant, and a private company, Volvo Car Corporation, and served on the board of directors of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC and as CEO and Board Chairman at Clear Standards.


 
ethics
Clearhouse
5 Keys to Understanding and Addressing Workplace Retaliation
Publication Date: May 29, 2018

The Ethics & Compliance Initiative (ECI) empowers organizations to build and sustain high quality ethics and compliance programs.

An alarming trend is occurring in our workplaces; retaliatory behaviors are on the rise. According to the Global Business Ethics Survey (GBES), a longitudinal study of employees in for-profit organizations, rates of retaliation for reporting suspected wrongdoing have doubled over the past 3 years. Forty-four percent of employees who alerted management to a potential violation said that they experienced some form of retribution for having stepped forward.

Retaliation is very difficult for leaders to address; not for lack of desire or recognition of its importance. It is often not reported and therefore it quietly perpetuates, with victims sometimes experiencing ongoing punishment from management and peers. It can also be difficult to prove, with only circumstantial evidence to rely on, addressing the problem becomes even harder.

Despite the challenge, it is vital for an organization's long-term success that boards and senior leaders acknowledge and prioritize retaliation as a credible business risk.

There are 5 key insights that can help directors and executives better understand and address retaliation:

1.   Reporting and retaliation rise and fall together.

In part, the retaliation trend is the result of corporate investment in ethics and compliance (E&C) programs that encourage employees to recognize and report suspected wrongdoing. When an organization successfully implements an E&C program to encourage employees to report misconduct, they are often successful in creating "speak up cultures" with increases in reports by as much as 33%. However, along with that, they often see the employees who report being punished by their colleagues for coming forward. It is the difficult reality of E&C programs; the more employees attempt to report wrongdoing, the more likely it is that they will experience repercussions for having done so.

Twelve percent of employees who report wrongdoing only once say they experienced retribution. That number increases to almost 40% of employees who attempt to report three times. The likelihood that that those individuals will be retaliated against increases by another 50% if they try to come forward two times thereafter. Eighty percent of employees who try to report wrongdoing five or more times say they experience retaliation. This pattern is true globally. In working to mitigate retaliation in an organization, employees should feel assured in being able to report wrongdoing confidentially.

Another worrisome trend is that, in the past, reporting and retaliation have tended to rise and fall in similar amounts. However, over the past three years, reporting rose by 7% while retaliation rates increased 50%. It is difficult to say why this is the case. However, one possibility is that the majority of misconduct that was observed involved senior leaders. Generally speaking, wrongdoing that occurs at higher levels of an organization tends to be more serious in nature. The more power a violator has, and the more serious the alleged misconduct, the more likely it is that employees who report will experience reprisal.

2.   Most retaliation is social in nature.

Nearly 60% of employees who say that they have experienced retribution for reporting indicate that they were snubbed or shunned in subtle gestures, excluded from social situations, or overlooked in teaming environments. Nevertheless, half of employees say that they experienced verbal abuse by their supervisor or someone else in management, and almost 40% said that they almost lost their job.

3.   It doesn't matter whether the retribution really happened.

So long as an employee perceives that he/she has experienced retribution, the damage is done. Not only will that individual be unlikely to report the retaliation, the likelihood of their going outside the organization to report to a third party (such as an enforcement agency) is greatly increased. Furthermore, that individual is 65% less likely to come forward to report any other act of misconduct, should that take place. Therefore, it is important that management actively seeks out and manages perceptions of the reporting process.

4.   Acts of retaliation have a long-lasting and wide-reaching effect.

When retribution occurs, three new problems surface. A new form of misconduct has taken place (the retaliatory act); a new victim (the reporter) has been created; and the retaliatory act seeds an environment that is cancerous to the overall culture of the organization. Once it becomes known among other employees that retaliation occurs, there is a widespread silencing effect. Fifty-three percent of employees with first-hand knowledge of misconduct do not come forward out of fear that they will experience retribution for doing so. This fear of retribution then enables misconduct to become engrained in the culture of the organization. Therefore, tolerance of retaliation can be a leading indicator of future misconduct.

5.   Retaliation can be reduced and even eliminated.

The more an organization does to implement a high-quality ethics and compliance (E&C) program, the less retaliation occurs. While it may sound contradictory to the first insight in our list, the quality of the program makes a difference. While more than half of those who report misconduct say they experienced retaliation in companies without high quality E&C programs, only four percent say they have suffered from retaliation in companies with high quality programs. The same pattern is true for the extent to which misconduct occurs in the first place. That is because the higher the quality of the program, the stronger the culture in the organization. The stronger the culture, the less retaliation occurs.

To improve the quality of E&C efforts, boards and executives should shift from a narrow view of risk and compliance to a broader focus on culture and accountability. Message matters. Individuals are more likely to come forward to report wrongdoing if they believe that their report will make a difference; and they trust that they will be protected by management if they come forward. That is not a message of compliance. Boards should insist that management establish safe "speak up cultures" that emphasize a set of core values as the highest priority and the standard for all conduct. Management should also promote the availability of resources for those who observe wrongdoing; empower individuals to come forward; and clearly communicate that all individuals who engage in retaliation will be disciplined.

When it can be identified, retaliation is very difficult to prove in such a way that management can formally respond with legal or disciplinary action. Yet it is essential for leaders to find a way to address retaliation, for the sake of individual employees and the ongoing vitality of the organization.

***

The Ethics & Compliance Initiative (ECI) is a best practice community of organizations that are committed to creating and sustaining high quality ethics & compliance programs. ECI provides independent research about workplace integrity, ethical standards, and compliance processes and practices in public and private institutions.


The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author at the time of publication and may not be updated. They do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc. The content does not attempt to examine all the facts and circumstances which may be relevant to any particular company, industry or security mentioned herein and nothing contained herein should be construed as legal or investment advice.


 
Subscribe

clearinghouse_rightpane
Governance Clearinghouse RSS Feed Governance Clearinghouse RSS Feed

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT!
In the News
Invitation to Participate in ISS' Annual Policy Development Process
Publication Date: August 6, 2018

Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS), has launched its two-part Annual Policy Survey which will look at potential changes to ISS's proxy voting policies for 2019. Part one will cover topics including auditors and audit committees, director accountability, board gender diversity and the "one-share, one-vote" principle. This part of the survey will close on August 24, 2018. The second part of the survey is the ISS Policy Application Survey, a more expansive and detailed set of questions, broken down by region, which will remain open for responses until September 21, 2018. Institutional investors, companies, corporate directors and other market constituents are all invited to respond.

Read more >>

Take the ISS Governance Principles Survey >>


2018 Investor Corporate Governance Report
Publication Date: July 26, 2018

The CMi2i 2018 Annual Investor Corporate Governance Report surveyed institutional shareholders representing $8 trillion of Assets under Management to find out which Environmental, Social and Governance ("ESG") areas they believe will be key issues in 2018, and the impact of this on shareholder behavior. Respondents were comprised of individuals responsible for corporate governance, responsible investment and proxy voting from U.S. and European institutions. The report highlights the desire for increased transparency from shareholders and other stakeholders on how companies are approaching, assessing and managing their ESG risk and opportunities.

Read more >>

Read the 2018 CMi2i Report >>


House Passes Bipartisan "JOBS & Investor Confidence Act"
Publication Date: July 19, 2018

In a near unanimous vote of 406-4, the House passed the bipartisan "JOBS and Investor Confidence Act of 2018," aimed at helping small businesses, entrepreneurs and investors by reforming our capital markets. The critical legislation includes provisions to: make it easier for companies to go public by extending on-ramp exemptions for emerging growth companies to give them more time to financially sustain costs and requirements associated with full compliance; ease regulations on Initial Public Offerings to increase opportunities for everyday investors; and expand the definition of "accredited investors" to make it easier for startup companies and small businesses to attract investments.

Read more >>


SEC Rule Changes
Publication Date: July 16, 2018

The Securities and Exchange Commission approved several rule changes that reflect progress towards the Commission's priorities. Most significantly, the Commission voted to adopt amendments to the "smaller reporting company" (SRC) definition to expand the number of companies that qualify for certain existing scaled disclosure accommodations. A company now qualifies if its public float is less than $250 million, which represents a $175 million increase over the prior $75 million threshold. SEC Chairman, Jay Clayton, stated: "These amendments to the existing SRC compliance structure bring that structure more in line with the size and scope of smaller companies while maintaining our long-standing approach to investor protection in our public capital markets." The Commission also approved a requirement to use the Inline XBRL format in certain filings.

Read more >>


Society for Corporate Governance Complimentary Directors' Cut Newsletter
Publication Date: July 11, 2018

The Society for Corporate Governance is now offering complimentary access to its Society Alert - Directors' Cut® newsletter. This quarterly online newsletter is a compilation of governance-related news from the preceding quarter's weekly Society Alerts, with a view toward a director and C-suite audience. Each issue covers a range of relevant developments and guidance in areas such as audit/financial reporting, board composition/refreshment, board and key committee oversight, and shareholder engagement/activism - as well as institutional investor developments & perspectives.

Read the Society Alert - Directors' Cut for 2018 Q2 >>

Subscribe to the newsletter >>


Investors, Innovation, and Performance Top SEC's Draft Strategic Plan
Publication Date: June 20, 2018

The Securities and Exchange Commission has published a draft strategic plan that focuses on investors, innovation, and performance as the top strategic goals in coming years. SEC Chairman, Jay Clayton, stated that "this plan focuses on the most important goals and initiatives that will best position the SEC to fulfill our mission of protecting investors, ensuring fair, orderly, and efficient markets and facilitating capital formation." The SEC is seeking public comment on the proposed draft that will guide the SEC's priorities through 2022.

Read more >>



clearinghouse_footer_banner
Revitalize Banner

home_footer_links
Copyright_statement
App Store       Google Play       Windows Store       Governance Clearinghouse RSS Feed
The Nasdaq Stock Market, Nasdaq, The Nasdaq Global Select Market, The Nasdaq Global Market, The Nasdaq Capital Market, ExACT and Exchange Analysis and Compliance Tracking system are trademarks of Nasdaq, Inc.
FINRA® and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.® are registered trademarks of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. OTCBBTM and OTC Bulletin BoardTM are trademarks of FINRA