Even after the financial downturn, some banks aren't making the necessary changes to their boards.
Toronto’s Financial District, looking north to Old City Hall. (Photo: mark.watmough/Flickr)
There’s an old maxim that corporations don’t fail, boards do. And when banks fail, the reason is poor management, which is the fault of a poor board.
Take the case of Lehman Brothers, the financial services firm that collapsed in 2008 and played a big role in the global economic downturn. Stanford University professors David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan noted that Lehman’s board was lacking financial services experience and current business acumen. In fact, the former CEOs on the board were, on average, 12 years into their retirement. “This raises the question of whether the professional experiences of Lehman board members were relevant for understanding the increasing complexity of financial markets,” wrote Larcker and Tayan.
Well, the job of a bank board isn’t getting any easier. Following the financial downturn, banks have been placed under greater scrutiny and new regulations, both in Canada and abroad.
That’s why banking board directors need to be at the top of their game.
Last week, I spoke to bank directors in Dallas, Texas, about banking governance best practices as a result of a review that I had conducted for the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. (The OFSI is Canada’s banking regulator.) Specifically, I looked at Canada’s governance guidelines and board assessment criteria and compared them with international financial regulatory practices and recent developments. I provided the OFSI with suggestions for revisions.
Proposed board reforms to Canada’s deposit-taking institutions and insurance companies under the new guidelines include: appointing directors with relevant financial services experience; more board control over enterprise risk; enhanced director training, self-assessment and external reviews; and certain powers that allow boards to better direct and monitor management.
When I asked the audience in Dallas for a show of hands as to how many of them adopted at least some of these best practices, about half the hands went up.
However, it’s apparent that many boards aren’t prepared for a new era of banking regulations.
Remember the JPMorgan board of directors that oversaw the derivative failure that cost the bank several billion dollars? Well, here is the current board. Last I checked, not a single director other than the CEO had banking experience. This is wrong.
In 2009 and 2010, there were a total of 297 bank failures in the U.S., according to the Federal Deposit and Insurance Corporation. In the second quarter of this year, the FDIC identified 732 “problem” banks which are at risk of failing.
At the event in Dallas, one of the speakers brought up a good point. “Don’t get involved in something you don’t understand,” said Charles G. Cooper, commissioner of the Texas Department of Banking. He added: “The duties haven’t changed, but the topic is harder.”
And he’s right. That’s why it’s vital that banking boards are well-equipped with qualified directors for this increasingly complex environment.
Blogs & Comment
Banking boards need savvy, experienced directors
Even after the financial downturn, some banks aren't making the necessary changes to their boards.
By Richard Leblanc
Toronto’s Financial District, looking north to Old City Hall. (Photo: mark.watmough/Flickr)
There’s an old maxim that corporations don’t fail, boards do. And when banks fail, the reason is poor management, which is the fault of a poor board.
Take the case of Lehman Brothers, the financial services firm that collapsed in 2008 and played a big role in the global economic downturn. Stanford University professors David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan noted that Lehman’s board was lacking financial services experience and current business acumen. In fact, the former CEOs on the board were, on average, 12 years into their retirement. “This raises the question of whether the professional experiences of Lehman board members were relevant for understanding the increasing complexity of financial markets,” wrote Larcker and Tayan.
Well, the job of a bank board isn’t getting any easier. Following the financial downturn, banks have been placed under greater scrutiny and new regulations, both in Canada and abroad.
That’s why banking board directors need to be at the top of their game.
Last week, I spoke to bank directors in Dallas, Texas, about banking governance best practices as a result of a review that I had conducted for the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. (The OFSI is Canada’s banking regulator.) Specifically, I looked at Canada’s governance guidelines and board assessment criteria and compared them with international financial regulatory practices and recent developments. I provided the OFSI with suggestions for revisions.
Proposed board reforms to Canada’s deposit-taking institutions and insurance companies under the new guidelines include: appointing directors with relevant financial services experience; more board control over enterprise risk; enhanced director training, self-assessment and external reviews; and certain powers that allow boards to better direct and monitor management.
When I asked the audience in Dallas for a show of hands as to how many of them adopted at least some of these best practices, about half the hands went up.
However, it’s apparent that many boards aren’t prepared for a new era of banking regulations.
Remember the JPMorgan board of directors that oversaw the derivative failure that cost the bank several billion dollars? Well, here is the current board. Last I checked, not a single director other than the CEO had banking experience. This is wrong.
In 2009 and 2010, there were a total of 297 bank failures in the U.S., according to the Federal Deposit and Insurance Corporation. In the second quarter of this year, the FDIC identified 732 “problem” banks which are at risk of failing.
At the event in Dallas, one of the speakers brought up a good point. “Don’t get involved in something you don’t understand,” said Charles G. Cooper, commissioner of the Texas Department of Banking. He added: “The duties haven’t changed, but the topic is harder.”
And he’s right. That’s why it’s vital that banking boards are well-equipped with qualified directors for this increasingly complex environment.