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.
The rate and complexity of change in the marketplace is greater than ever before—and not showing any signs of slowing. From innovation and disruptive technologies to regulatory activity and stakeholder scrutiny, companies are constantly presented with new risks and challenges. As NACD’s new Chair Reatha Clark King observed, writer William Gibson captured the inflection point most corporate boards find themselves approaching: the future is here, it’s just not evenly distributed. As these changes force global economic shifts, it is necessary for those in the boardroom to understand and prepare for the future structure of directorship now.
This week, NACD held the second in a series of exploratory meetings in Chicago to discuss how the boardroom can define and prepare for the challenges and opportunities expected in the next five to seven years. This meeting series—held in New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles—will culminate in the kickoff of NACD Directorship 2020 at the 2013 NACD Board Leadership Conference. An effort to provide directors with a clear vision of what their roles will resemble in the future, NACD Directorship 2020 will extend from educational programs and roundtable exchanges to publications, all shaped by feedback from these events.
At the Langham Hotel in Chicago, more than 100 directors attended the afternoon session to discuss two topics: the future state of communications between the board and C-suite and how to select performance metrics that will generate sustainable organizational profit. Sessions were led by NACD President and CEO Ken Daly; Akamai Technologies Lead Director and Audit Committee Chairman Martin Coyne; NACD Chair King; and former Bell and Howell CEO, current NACD Director, and Northwestern University Professor Bill White. During the highly interactive sessions, each table was given a specific set of questions to discuss and provide thoughts among their peers. Takeaways from the event include:
Directorship is a part-time job with full time accountability. Inherent in the board/C-suite relationship is an information imbalance. However, with the right culture and board leadership, the board and senior management can easily communicate expectations and necessary information.
A CEO’s leadership style can serve as an indicator that the risk of information asymmetry has become too high. Directors establish a level of trust with the CEO and management to allow for board access to other members of the senior team, as well as site visits to see the company’s operations.
With an expanding board agenda, process and expectation setting are critical. The board should clearly communicate to management the types and format of information that need to be presented.
An empowered lead director or non-executive chair can help mitigate the risk of information imbalance. By facilitating communication channels and work between the independent directors and the CEO, this leadership position can break down some of the road blocks that may develop between the C-suite and directors. The relationship between the CEO and lead director or chair should be transparent.
Culture is critical in effective dialogue between the board and senior management. With the right culture, directors can be sure they are aware of the risks that are keeping the CEO up at night.
Sharing information via performance metrics, which are focused on what directors need to know, can bridge gaps in information flow. Ultimately, the board has to make winning decisions which are informed by data.
Today, directors balance short-term shareholder expectations with generating long-term sustainable profit. The role of the stakeholder, though, is more significant than ever before and expected to grow. In the future, directors will have to be increasingly focused on balancing shareholder return with stakeholder concerns.
It may be difficult for the board to address and to communicate with every stakeholder. The board should identify which stakeholders are critical to the strategic plans, and target communications to those groups.
Balance also extends to leading versus lagging indicators. The board should first approve the right strategy and set goals accordingly. Leading indicators will drive ensuing performance—but lagging indicators are also necessary to provide the right feedback loop.
Innovation is important to the success of any company. How innovation is defined, though, is largely dependent on the company, and should be rooted in the corporate strategy. For some, innovation will manifest in processes, products, or both.
The next NACD Directorship 2020 event will be held 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 Cos., and PwC—that will take a deeper look into the emerging issues and trends that will redefine directorship.
As a delegate to NACD’s Advisory Council on Risk Oversight recently said: “Directors don’t know what they don’t know.” This Fortune 500 director was referencing one of the challenges facing corporate boards today: asymmetric information risk.
Asymmetric information risk refers to the risk inherent in the imbalance in the information flow between management and the board. Directors serve in a part-time capacity while the management team operates full time. Naturally, senior-level executives have a much deeper knowledge about the organization’s operational processes and risks than the board. As such, directors rely on senior management for the information necessary to carry out their oversight duties.
In our experience working with boards, we’ve found an effective solution for mitigating asymmetric information risk is to develop a systematic process in which the board is given access to the executive team – beyond the CEO. Examples of senior staff with whom the board should regularly meet include the chief risk officer, chief compliance officer, head of internal audit, chief ethics officer, general counsel, CFO, and chief information officer. NACD’s C-Suite Expectations: Understanding C-Suite Roles Beyond the Core helps directors understand the types of information they should provide.
One way to ensure that this systematic reporting occurs is to include a recurring slot for key executives and functional leaders to present – perhaps during the board and or committee executive sessions. The goal here is to help the board understand what keeps these executives up at night and anticipate issues in advance.
The board is responsible for providing oversight on the appraisal of strategic and enterprise risk. The inherent nature of a director’s role, however, results in a reliance on the information presented in the boardroom and between meetings, by select members of the management team. For the board to mitigate this natural imbalance in information flow, directors should have in place a systematic process for engaging with key executives, in addition to those limited few who traditionally participate in board meetings.
For more on leading practices in risk oversight, read the latest Summary of Proceedings from the NACD Advisory Council on Risk Oversight.