Harvard Kennedy School Senior Fellow Antonio Weiss
One of the central pillars of financial reform, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), is under political attack and at risk of coming undone.
In the past, the balkanized U.S. financial regulatory system has consistently failed to address risks that took root in its jurisdictional gaps. The FSOC was created to solve that problem, bringing regulators together to make sure they have the tools to protect the economy from financial crises. It is already making an important difference.
Unfortunately, earlier this month the House Financial Services Committee passed the Financial Choice Act (CHOICE Act), which threatens to reverse that progress. It would, for example, all but eliminate the FSOC’s ability to prevent the regrowth of an unsupervised shadow banking sector that might once again threaten our financial stability and economic resiliency. At the same time, the administration of President Donald Trump has signaled that it may use the council to pursue deregulation, rather than its core mandate of financial stability, and to reverse or limit its ability to designate systemically important non-banks for enhanced supervision. Meanwhile, MetLife Inc., the largest U.S. life insurer, recently asked the courts to delay ruling on an appeal filed by the Obama administration seeking to reinstate the firm’s designation as a systemically important institution requiring prudential oversight by the Federal Reserve. The Trump administration has agreed to put the appeal on hold.
GoPro’s recent loss of $107.5 million is certainly dramatic. After all, last year it announced a profit of $16.8 million. However, it’s also a cautionary tale for all new companies that find themselves in a similarly precarious financial position after enjoying rapid financial success. When this happens, it’s time to take a hard look at the business model.
The big question the company should ask is whether it aspires to be more like Crocs, Chrysler, or Apple. These three companies have all found varying degrees of success through very different models. Each offers substantial pros and cons so it is important for GoPro to know its vision and find the right fit.
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.
Joining a family business isn’t for everyone. It’s a risky decision that needs a lot of careful consideration. You might build a successful dynasty that grows into a Fortune 500 company, with generations of family continuing to lead the business. Or, like the vast majority of family businesses in the U.S., your business might not make it to the second or third generation. Even worse, your family dynamics could break down, leaving a legacy of dysfunction that long outlasts the business.
So how do you decide whether to join a family business? The next generation should consider six key issues before diving in:
1. There can only be one CEO Think about where you currently stand in the family and where you can potentially go in the business. If you’re in the second or third generation, there may be siblings and cousins all hoping to take over as CEO. Stop and think about whether your goal is senior leadership. If it is, ask yourself if this is realistic. Who is competing for those positions? Is your cousin the “golden child” of the family? Are you the most qualified? Are there family politics involved?