For corporate directors, time is a valuable resource. As such, I’m frequently asked why directors should carve out three days to attend NACD’s annual Board Leadership Conference, which is held every October in the nation’s capital. To me, it is obvious why those in the boardroom should attend this first-rate conference.
Here are the 10 reasons I shared with our NACD chapter leaders at a recent meeting in St. Louis, Missouri:
Save $500 when registering by April 30. The NACD Board Leadership Conference is historically sold out, and this three-day conference represents the most important knowledge exchange for the world’s leading directors, C-suite executives, and governance experts.
For directors by directors. Learn from leading boardroom practitioners, those who have endured many hard lessons you may not want to encounter yourself! Hear firsthand from Laban Jackson, audit committee chair of JPMorgan Chase, about the London Whale controversy and his perspective on the board’s role in risk oversight. Learn more about the shifting landscape of social media from Clara Shih, Starbucks director and CEO of Hearsay. Get the latest on how big data is impacting business with Rich Relevance CEO David Sellinger.
Get more actionable takeaways than from any other conference.Address persistent challenges and gain “next practices” from your peers on the timeliest and most critical boardroom issues, including human capital management, emerging technology, compensation, and global markets.
Make your voice heard.Take part in shaping thought leadership and talk to influential legislators, regulators, and stakeholders.
Sharpen your committee skills. Attend a Sunday Board Committee Forum, including dedicated sessions on audit, compensation, nominating/governance, and risk. Network with peers during breaks following big-name keynote speakers, and share your opinion with peer-led panels and committee chairs who really understand your challenges.
Get hands-on with social media. Visit our first ever social media learning lab, staffed by experts in the latest social media trends, who can show you the ropes and help you understand how social medial is affecting your business.
Spark innovative thinking.Participate in active dialogues around Directorship 2020™—NACD’s new initiative—to explore how and why the boardroom will change over the next several years and what you as a director need to know to keep pace. Gain exclusive insights gleaned from thought leaders and directors around the country in a report from our Directorship 2020 regional events.
Build your network. Exchange ideas with nearly 800 directors from around the world, including those from Akamai Technologies, Ford, JetBlue, JPMorgan Chase, and Union Pacific, to name a few.
Tailor your experience.There’s something for everyone. Join special breakouts for general counsels, private company directors, small-cap directors, and nonprofits organizations. With nearly 50 sessions, choose from unmatched session selection to meet your own boardroom needs and interests.
In my opinion, NACD’s Board Leadership Conference is not only a great value, but an experience every corporate director should take part in.
I look forward to seeing you this October in Washington, D.C. Register here.
In 2012, initial public offerings (IPOs) did not quite make the rebound analysts had predicted. In the year of the botched Facebook offering, just 128 IPOs were made. Although quadruple that of 2008, this marks a decrease from 154 IPOs in 2011. Last May, the Economist observed that this decline was part of a larger trend: the decline in popularity of the public company.
Since 1997, the number of U.S. public companies has fallen by 38 percent. Additionally, the average number of IPOs has declined from 311 per year between 1980 and 2000, to 99 per year between 2001 and 2011. In addition to companies actively not going public, in the last year several well-known businesses “went private,” such as Quest Software, CKE Restaurants, Burger King, and J. Crew.
In addition to the obvious distinctions of private companies—a lack of shareholders and adherence to regulation—NACD’s recently released 2012—2013 Private Company Governance Surveyfound many lesser-known differences. This survey features responses from over 550 individuals who serve private company boards. Some of the contrasts include:
Private company boards are smaller. On average, private company boards have 7.3 members—a decrease from 8.9 members in 2011. For the past several years, public company boards have consistently maintained an average of 8.8 members.
Public company directors are more likely to receive continuing boardroom education. In 2012, 82 percent of public company directors received continuing education in the last 12 months, compared to 57 percent of private company directors. This may be connected to company policy, however: 83.1 percent of public directors were reimbursed for education expenses, while only 54.5 percent of private company peers were.
Trend in the private company boardroom: D&O Insurance. Additional directors and officers liability insurance was obtained by just 15 percent of private company directors in 2008. In 2012, this figure jumped to 50.4 percent. In comparison, 42.8 percent of public company directors purchased additional D&O insurance in 2012.
Nominating and governance committees are much less prevalent at private companies. Similar to public company counterparts, audit and compensation committees are nearly ubiquitous at private companies. However, just 49.2 percent of private company survey respondents indicated that their board had a committee dedicated to nominating and governance.
Private companies employ different mechanisms to ensure director turnover. The most commonly used method of director turnover at private companies is director evaluation. Age limits and term limits are both used by nearly one-fifth of respondents. At public companies, the most prevalent mechanism to renew and replace directors is age limits, closely followed by evaluations. Term limits are used by just 6.5 percent.
Generally, private company boards maintain less diverse composition. Compared to 27.4 percent of public companies, 38.5 percent of private companies do not have any female directors. With respect to minority directors—based on race and ethnicity—70.3 percent of private companies have no such representation, compared to 51.8 percent of public boards.
While public companies often dominate the news cycle, privately held companies play a major role in the global economy. According to Forbes, the largest 212 private companies in the U.S. represent $1.33 trillion in revenues. Although they aren’t subject to the full gamut of requirements as dictated by listing exchanges and regulatory agencies, private companies are inching closer to their public counterparts in terms of governance practices, according to the 2011 NACD Private Company Governance Survey. To be released next month, this survey details the governance habits of America’s private company boardrooms. According to our data, in few cases do the practices between public and private boardrooms differ greatly.
All companies are faced with an extremely challenging economic environment. As a result, private company directors, like their public company counterparts, have maintained focus on strategic planning and oversight. In fact, boards have listed corporate strategy as their top priority for the past three years. Oversight of corporate performance is consistently ranked as second. These two concerns indicate that private company directors, despite the economic volatility, focus their attention on the long-term sustainable performance of their organizations.
While some priorities remain unchanged, private boards have also made adjustments in response to the current environment. This year, the need to build bench strength is a top issue for directors. Executive talent management and leadership development rose to the third most important issue, its highest ranking to date.
The findings from the private survey are typically a leading indicator of the “hot topics” being discussed in America’s boardrooms. At a time when corporate leadership is under heightened public scrutiny, the rising importance of executive talent management is a positive sign.