Nasdaq seeks mandatory rule on board diversity for companies

[tomorton]

Newly relevant bit of history - “get woke, go broke”, as they say.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...en-join-corporate-boards-stock-prices-go-down
An analysis of 14 years of market returns across about 1,889 companies finds that when they appointed female directors, they experienced two years of stock declines. The market value of a given company fell 2.3% by adding one additional woman.

The researchers asked senior managers with MBAs to read fictional press releases announcing new board members. The statements were identical, except for the gender of the incoming director. Participants rated those hiring men as more likely to care about profits and less about social values and those hiring women as “softer,” Snellman said.

I can’t believe those racist stock traders, caring more about the company’s commitment to profits than to gender diversity and “stakeholder” issues. Too bad competency is not a Nasdaq board requirement, or even enforcing director independence.

This really should not be regarded as a surprise. Appointing people using characteristics which are irrelevant to the job they are to do is unlikely to result in an improvement in performance.

Of course, some otherwise unavailable changes might occur and some of these might be beneficial. But the competent management of a company should not involve seeking random appointments who obtain random benefits.

 

[murray t turtle]

Why does this "diversity" idea have to be based only on sexual desire, skin color or gender? Why not the height of a person?

I think there should be at least one midget/dwarf on every board. Or maybe they are included in the underrepresented category?

%%
Exactly/LOL!!!!!
And what about those that are not Hispanic/dont panic; some built an empire on white people wanting tan skin....................................................................NOT a stock tip ,but TAN has had a good UP run.

 

[JSOP]

Newly relevant bit of history - “get woke, go broke”, as they say.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...en-join-corporate-boards-stock-prices-go-down
An analysis of 14 years of market returns across about 1,889 companies finds that when they appointed female directors, they experienced two years of stock declines. The market value of a given company fell 2.3% by adding one additional woman.

The researchers asked senior managers with MBAs to read fictional press releases announcing new board members. The statements were identical, except for the gender of the incoming director. Participants rated those hiring men as more likely to care about profits and less about social values and those hiring women as “softer,” Snellman said.

I can’t believe those racist stock traders, caring more about the company’s commitment to profits than to gender diversity and “stakeholder” issues. Too bad competency is not a Nasdaq board requirement, or even enforcing director independence.

You mean sexist stock traders.

 

[MoreLeverage]

Apparently Nasdaq thinks the diversity hires on the boards won’t be smart enough to get away with insider trading and cites this as an advantage to their proposal.

https://nypost.com/2020/12/05/why-nasdaqs-latest-diversity-plan-is-hypocritical/

 

[murray t turtle]

Apparently Nasdaq thinks the diversity hires on the boards won’t be smart enough to get away with insider trading and cites this as an advantage to their proposal.

https://nypost.com/2020/12/05/why-nasdaqs-latest-diversity-plan-is-hypocritical/

%%
Strange + funny/thier loop hole rule has already brought a midget loophole suggestion/LOL
I always tended to do some 3 letter symbols/good for NYSE.
Actually having a female or 2 on the board sounds fine if the company wants that.
Its not self id nonsense, but i've noticed more female REALTY agents;like non self identified Ross Perot said in Stock Traders Almanac/ ''if there is anything more boring than a corporate board i never found it''

 

[MoreLeverage]

The current SEC, along partisan lines, rubber stamped the Nasdaq diversity-over-competence governance proposal.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nasdaqs-board-diversity-proposal-faces-sec-decision-11628242202

Under the proposal, Nasdaq-listed companies would need to meet certain minimum targetsfor the gender and ethnic diversity of their boards or explain in writing why they aren’t doing so. For most U.S. companies, the target would be to have at least one woman director, as well as a director who self-identifies as a racial minority or as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer. Companies would also be required to disclose diversity statistics about their boards.