Almost all boards of U.S. public companies now have three committees that meet immediately before every board meeting and report to the full board — audit, compensation, and nominating-governance. Committees have become the workhorses of the governance process: with their small size and expert support, they can do more in-depth analysis of complex topics than the full board of directors.
However, since the passage of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the duties of the audit committee, especially, have become so large and complex that it cannot seriously assess broader financial issues.
Audit committees continue to perform the traditional functions of appointing the company’s independent auditor and reviewing its financial statements. But audit committees now have a long list of other obligations — including oversight of complaints by whistle blowers and violations of ethics codes; approval of non-audit functions by auditors; and review of the management report and auditor attestation on internal controls. The audit committee also holds private sessions with both external and internal auditors as well as the chief financial officer and the head of compliance/risk.
In other words, audit committees are overburdened by their increased obligations to oversee the details of the reporting and compliance processes. As a result, the audit committee no longer has enough time to seriously consider broader financial topics. If directors are going to have meaningful input into the broad financial issues faced by any public company, they need to form a finance committee with the time and expertise to address the issues.
“Are new regulations creating new problems for the housing market?”
“Has the federal government now become the subprime market?”
“Could the financial crisis happen again any time soon?”
These were just a few of the questions tackled by Deborah Lucas, the Distinguished Professor of Finance at MIT’s Sloan School of Management and the Director of the MIT Golub Center for Finance and Policy, during the #MITSloanExperts Twitter chat on October 30.
Joined by host Amy Resnick, editor of Pensions & Investments, she asked Lucas questions about the future of financial regulation and housing market finance reform, as well as ideas for fostering stronger ties between the regulatory and the academic communities.
Did you miss the chat? That’s OK, but we’ve encapsulated everything in the Storify below.
After much speculation, President Trump has announced his pick to lead the Federal Reserve System: Jerome “Jay” Powell. How should we think about this appointment in the context of the overall Trump administration thinking on financial regulation?
Trump slammed Wall Street throughout his campaign, asserting big banks had “gotten away with murder.” The Republican National Convention platform even mentioned a new Glass-Steagall (the Great Depression-era restriction on banks’ activities). Still, many questioned whether the Trump administration, including Powell, was committed to implementing policies tough on global megabanks.
The answer is no.
There are actually two Trump administrations. One, which attempts to deal with issues that require legislation, like health care, is having trouble making progress. But the second, which can change the rules of regulation, is moving full-steam ahead. We can already see the ground being cleared for a major round of financial deregulation.
There are three important signs of intent when it comes to finance. First, the top people on economic policy in the White House and at Treasury have all worked on Wall Street — and mostly at one big bank, Goldman Sachs. Gary Cohn, the former Goldman Sachs president, is chairman of Trump’s National Economic Council, and he has brought in a team that apparently is running the show in terms of policy. Cohn has made his intentions clear: He wants to rollback regulation.
Deborah Lucas, the Distinguished Professor of Finance at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, and the Director of the MIT Golub Center for Finance and Policy, will discuss the 10-year anniversary of the financial crisis during an #MITSloanExperts Twitter chat on October 30 at 12 p.m. EDT.
As the 10-year anniversary of the great financial crisis approaches, Lucas will focus on answering what have we learned and whether we have made enough progress to prevent a repeat of something similar. Lucas’ recent research has focused on measuring and accounting for the costs and risks of government financial obligations. Her academic publications cover a wide range of topics including the effect of idiosyncratic risk on asset prices and portfolio choice, dynamic models of corporate finance, financial institutions, monetary economics, and valuation of government guarantees. An expert on federal credit programs, she has testified before Congress on budgeting for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, student loans, and on strategically important financial institutions.
The host of the chat will be Amy Resnick, editor of Pensions & Investments. Resnick will ask Lucas questions about the future of financial regulation and housing market finance reform, as well as ideas for fostering stronger ties between the regulatory and the academic communities.
To join the chat, be on Twitter on October 30 at 12 p.m. ET and follow the hashtag #MITSloanExperts. Questions can be submitted in advance or in real-time, using #MITSloanExperts.
Doug Criscitello, Executive Director of MIT’s Center for Finance and Policy
From The Hill
In a recent column, I discussed cyber risks that could adversely affect bank and brokerage customers and explored the conditions necessary for development of actuarially sound insurance products at the retail level to protect individuals from the most catastrophic of cyberattacks to their accounts.
While new consumer-oriented insurance products are being offered to guard against cyberattacks, they don’t necessarily mitigate a consumer’s nightmare scenario. That scenario goes beyond having personally identifiable information stolen to having your bank’s digital records wiped out or otherwise corrupted by a malicious actor, eliminating any history of your account balances. So this is the question: would your bank or brokerage stand by you in the event of such an attack or is cyber risk insurance necessary?
Regardless of the availability of cyber risk insurance for individuals, the threat to consumers flows from vulnerabilities within and across financial institutions. To the extent an individual’s bank or other financial services provider has strong institutional defenses, risk to individuals falls dramatically.