Posts Tagged ‘Dodd-Frank’

Key Insights From the Audit Committee Chair Advisory Council

August 1st, 2013 | By

On June 19, NACD and partners KPMG’s Audit Committee Institute (ACI) and Sidley Austin LLP co-hosted the most recent meeting of the Audit Committee Chair Advisory Council, bringing together audit committee chairs from major U.S. corporations, key regulators and standard setters from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), and Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), and other audit experts for an open dialogue on the key issues and challenges impacting the audit committee agenda.

As detailed in the summary of proceedings, the forum provided timely insights into a number of issues that are top of mind for audit committees. Key insights from the dialogue include:

  • As the PCAOB continues to focus on enhancing auditor independence, skepticism, and objectivity, audit committees are wrestling with how to make the best use of PCAOB inspection reports, with some questioning the timeliness and relevance of the reports and the use of the term “audit failure.”
  • Audit committees continue to discuss the potential value of more robust reporting from the audit committee and external auditors to provide greater insight into their work. Most delegates agreed that the auditor’s statement is the right area of focus.
  • Companies should be preparing for the impact of FASB’s “big four” convergence projects—revenue recognition, leases, financial instruments, and insurance contracts—with a particular focus on the lead time IT departments will need to implement systems changes.
  • Under new leadership, the SEC is refocusing on corporate accounting fraud and the quality of financial disclosures, while moving ahead with its already heavy rule-making agenda resulting from Dodd-Frank mandates and the JOBS Act.
  • The allocation of risk oversight duties among the audit committee, full board, and other board committees is receiving increased attention, as the risk environment becomes more complex and audit committees reassess their risk oversight responsibilities.
  • In their oversight role, directors serve in a part-time capacity, while management is full time, resulting in executives having a much deeper knowledge of the operational aspects and risks of the company. To overcome this inherent imbalance, directors should apply a “healthy” level of skepticism to the information and assumptions management provides.
  • The audit committee’s effectiveness hinges not only on having the right mix of skills and backgrounds, but also having a robust onboarding process and commitment to continuing director education.

For the full day’s discussion and proposed council action items, click here to read the summary of proceedings.

Boardroom Confidence Rebounds to Cautiously Optimistic

April 25th, 2013 | By

Since the financial crisis, uncertainty in regulatory activity has been the sole constant factor. Dodd-Frank, resulting activity from agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), and Federal Reserve, healthcare reform legislation, the JOBS Act, and now debates over the debt ceiling have kept those in the boardroom on their toes. Further, rarely have established economic indicators served as heralds of the market’s health—and this quarter proves no different. The metrics tell different stories: Executives think the economy is improving, but fewer mid-sized companies expect to increase capital spending. Consumer confidence fell nearly 10 points in March, but CEO confidence rose nearly 8 points in the first quarter. Similar to executives, directors are demonstrating optimism in the strength of the markets: the NACD Board Confidence Index (BCI) jumped almost 10 points in Q1 to an overall score of 61.

From one perspective, this improved confidence from both directors and executives may represent that business leaders have grown accustomed to the certainty of uncertainty. Despite insecurity caused by regulatory and geopolitical activity, the markets have shown slow but steady growth, which directors and executives seem more willing to bet on.

Looking at historical trends in director confidence, however, this first quarter jolt might not be much more than a blip. Consistently, the BCI score is most optimistic in the first quarter of the year. Throughout the rest of the year though, that optimism tends to dwindle and typically fails to reach that initial level. In 2011, Q1’s score of 64.9 lost more than one-quarter of its original value by Q3. In 2012, a similar trend occurred: the Q1 score of 60.6 dropped significantly, and each remaining quarter failed to regain such a level of confidence. In fact, in both 2011 and 2012 first quarter confidence was at least five points higher than the ensuing year’s average.

Interestingly, boardroom uncertainty may have manifested in a different metric—confidence in one’s own industry relative to the general economy. The first quarter of 2013 marks the first time that NACD’s BCI measure for overall board confidence in the market was substantially higher than the score for directors’ industries: 61 vs. 58, respectively. Since 2011, directors have scored their industry an average of 5.75 points higher than the overall index.

Although one could predict that this year will follow the observed trend of first quarter confidence dwindling through the rest of the year, several metrics show that boards may buck this trend. Setting it apart from prior first quarters, in Q1 2013, 36 percent more directors indicated their companies expected to expand their workforces in the next quarter. In comparison, those projecting to hire in Q1 2012 and Q1 2011 represented 14 percent and 16 percent declines from the previous quarters, respectively. Additionally, when asked about economic conditions in one year, directors responded with a relatively confident score of 65. The second quarter of 2013 will confirm whether this optimism is short or long term.

Inaugural NACD Directorship 2020 Event Convenes 100 Directors in NYC

April 11th, 2013 | By

Without a doubt, directorship has changed. In the last 10 years, the effects of legislation and regulatory activity such as Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank have significantly expanded the role of the director. Taking into account the current trends of increased shareholder activism, heightened media scrutiny, emerging technologies, and disruptive innovations, it is expected that this role will continue to morph. As these shifts in the economy increase in amplitude and frequency, it is necessary for those in the boardroom to understand and prepare for the future structure of directorship—today.

With this in mind, NACD has launched NACD Directorship 2020 to help directors define and prepare for the emerging challenges and opportunities expected to impact boardrooms in five to seven years. More than an initiative, NACD Directorship 2020 extends from educational programs and roundtable exchanges to published research. Using topics informed by an advisory council composed of boardroom luminaries, academics, and governance experts, feedback from educational programs will shape ensuing research on leading practices for the future. In the coming months, several symposiums will be held across the nation, and the conversation will be continued at our annual Board Leadership Conference in October.

This week, NACD held the first of such symposiums at the Harvard Club in New York City. More than 100 directors attended the afternoon session to discuss two areas: the future state of the risk agenda, and how to select performance metrics that will engender sustainable organizational profit. The symposium was led by NACD President and CEO Ken Daly; Akamai Technologies Lead Director and Audit Committee Chairman Martin Coyne; and former Bell and Howell CEO, current NACD Director, and Northwestern University Professor Bill White. During the highly interactive sessions, questions were posed to attendees who were then able to discuss and provide thoughts among their peers. Takeaways from the event include:

  • Composition and resourcing is essential to navigating the current and future risks to the boardroom. With the right resources and information and the right people around the table, the boardroom can effectively engage in the critical issues.
  • Inherent in their role as part-time overseers, directors will always run the risk of information asymmetry: management has the full suite of information about the company’s operations that is then selected and parsed out to the board. The challenge for the board is to communicate its expectations on the type and amount of information it needs for effective oversight.
  • It is essential that directors trust, but verify. In the boardroom, the culture should be fostered so the executive staff feels they are able to report on the high-risk items and things that keep them up at night. To verify the information presented, directors should go beyond the C-suite, even outside the company. This can include meeting with the heads of business units, or gleaning outside sources of data.
  • In risk oversight, the board can informally meet with senior management and the internal audit team to develop a list of the top organizational risks. After these risks are identified, the board can have an executive session with an outside expert to gain more knowledge of the areas.
  • Industry experts on the board may not anticipate the disruptive technologies that have the potential to pose either a huge risk or opportunity to the company. While extremely valuable at the table, industry experts may not always be able to see beyond their acumen. Boards can recruit experts from other industries—who bring the perspective and knowledge of different risks and market forces—to serve as directors.
  • Total shareholder return (TSR) and financial and operational metrics reflect hindsight. These data can be bolstered with a healthy balance of “early warning” metrics derived from the company’s strategy, such as customer and employee satisfaction, dollar investment per employee, or retention.
  •  Metrics are the operationalization of strategy. If the strategy’s underlying assumptions are flawed, however, the metrics have less significance. Is the board looking at metrics that question the strategy itself? This could include a measurement of the organization’s adaptability changes in the marketplace.
  • Reputational and stakeholder risk is an area that should receive boardroom attention. Directors should encourage metrics that foster stakeholder engagement as a strategy for risk mitigation.
  • The long-term health of most companies is determined by its success in being innovative. The company should establish early warning metrics that monitor how its innovation systems generate sustainable cash flows.

The next NACD Directorship 2020 events will be held July 16 in Chicago and Sept. 10 in Los Angeles. Between events, NACD’s blog will feature viewpoints and research from our NACD Directorship 2020 partners—Broadridge, KPMG, Marsh & McLennan Companies, and PwC—that will take a deeper look into the emerging issues and trends that will redefine directorship.