Bloomberg Chairman sits on Glencore Board

This creates not only a potential governance problem, it also means that the Public cannot be 100% certain that reporting is conducted on arms-length basis. Not without reason a wise man once said that freedom of speech (and media) means that 200 (very) rich can say what they want. Read the last line of this article!
(6-Nov-2017)

Bloomberg

NYC Pension launches another box-ticking exercise

Is this just another box-ticking exercise? What would happen if every fund manager starts shooting off these questionnaires to any and all companies it has holdings in? Would the system survive this onslaught? I am sure that it would not as 1000s of companies would have to reply to 1000s of approaches, and not just once but the corporate governance crowd would want to have its piece of flesh every year!
I think the only way something like this could work if there are clear rules and an easy way to monitor them.

Join the Debate! Or is Corporate Goverance just for Show?

NYC Pension Funds Boardroom Accountability Project Version 2.0

Who needs Credit Ratings?

Warren Buffet certainly does not need them as he prefers to do his own analysis. We also suggest that investors do their own cooking. The only instances that makes ratings useful for investment decisions happen to be the situations where the consensus and/or ratings appear to cause a mispricing in the underlying security that allows a canny investor to benefit by taking the opposite side of the trade. As long as ratings are based on hard facts, usually numbers found in company accounts or data in national statistics, it is a simple matter of arithmetic to deduce the risk associated with a particular issuer. Where ratings rely on judgement calls they become highly subjective and should not be worth more than any other market opinion. Conflicts of interest exist when ratings agencies are given access to non-public information. As it is not possible for other investors to verify the information themselves, some lazy or naive investors get seduced to put excessive reliance on ratings decisions. This risk is exacerbated when laws or customs give ratings an official blessing - for example by requiring collateral posted with the European Central Bank to be of a certain credit quality testified by a rating.

How can Argentina be allowed into G20?

As far as we know, Argentina still refuses to settle its outstanding debt at full face value. So it is surprising that the country has been invited to participate in the G20 sessions. Need we more proof about the cavalier attitude that today's politicians take to investor rights?

Bonds: A Guaranteed way to lose money?

Legislators and well-meaning regulators in various countries push pension funds to increase their allocation to fixed-interest securities. This is based on a narrow definition of investment risk, but one that unfortunately seems to appeal to the lawyers, accountants and actuaries that dominate the discussion.
It is correct to say that bonds are less risky if risk is defined as return of principal, - in nominal terms. The experience of the past 100+ years, however, has demonstrated that loss of purchasing power is a far greater risk to the preservation of capital.

A Takeover Panel for Bond Markets?

Shareholders - at least in the United Kingdom - have for a long time benefited from a clear set of rules enshrined in a Code of Practice.
The recent trend to Mega-Bids by large Buy-Out Funds that even start to combine in consortia has created a situation where most sizeable companies that have bond issues outstanding can become targets of bids.
As most Buyouts are also expected to use a substantial amount of debt capital the outstanding bond issues can be subject to downgrading by the markets and rating agencies.
The regulators and should without delay look into this problem. Including the Holders of Debt in any Takeover Code would be a just solution and support confident in the functioning of the Public Bond Markets.