Sunday, August 23, 2009

Corporate governance

By having a wide and varied scope of owners, companies generally tend to improve on their management standards and efficiency in order to satisfy the demands of these shareholders and the more stringent rules for public corporations imposed by public stock exchanges and the government. Consequently, it is alleged that public companies (companies that are owned by shareholders who are members of the general public and trade shares on public exchanges) tend to have better management records than privately-held companies (those companies where shares are not publicly traded, often owned by the company founders and/or their families and heirs, or otherwise by a small group of investors). However, some well-documented cases are known where it is alleged that there has been considerable slippage in corporate governance on the part of some public companies. The dot-com bubble in the early 2000s, and the subprime mortgage crisis in 2007-08, are classical examples of corporate mismanagement. Companies like Pets.com (2000), Enron Corporation (2001), One.Tel (2001), Sunbeam (2001), Webvan (2001), Adelphia (2002), MCI WorldCom (2002), Parmalat (2003), American International Group (2008), Lehman Brothers (2008), and Satyam Computer Services (2009) were among the most widely scrutinized by the media.

No comments:

Post a Comment