>> MIM Speaks
MIND YOUR CHECKS AND BALANCE
JULY 1, 2001 (P.42) -
THE STAR
TO understand the role of corporate governance in determining
social and economic efficiency, we need to appreciate that it
is shaped by three basic disciplines: self-discipline,
regulatory discipline and market discipline.
Corporate governance depends on self-discipline of corporate
captains. If we look at the most successful and respected
entrepreneurs in Asia, you will notice that the exercise great
self-discipline. Good companies do well because they have
internal processes to ensure that they comply with the law,
deliver value to their customers, and behave ethically.
Today various studies suggest that investors would reward
companies with good corporate governance with as much as 20% to
30% share price differentials. It is thus in the self-interest
of corporate captains to ensure that they operate the highest
standards of corporate governance.
Regulatory discipline helps, but who regulates the regulators?
Of course, we all recognise that moral fibre alone will not be
sufficient to prevent the occurrence of insider dealing, market
manipulation and cheating or fraud.
Clearly, there must be regulatory discipline. The Asian
historical legacy of paternalism, most evident in Confucian
moral codes of correct behaviour, have not prevented the
corruption, fraud and market misconduct that we continue to
witness throughout history to the present day.
Consequently, the Legalist tradition called for a regulation
for every aspect of economic activity. But the Legalist
tradition failed because it was seen as over-regulation.
So, how do you balance regulatory and self-disciplines to
ensure that there are sufficient market efficiency without
misconduct?
On this issue, the Malaysian Finance Committee Report on
Corporate Governance states the conditions very clearly:
First, regulators must be allowed to enforce laws without
interference or fear or favour, and take action, to reinforce
the credibility of the entire regulatory framework.
Secondly, the enforcement of laws and regulations must be
consistent, to ensure a level playing field for all
participants.
Thirdly, the regulator cannot countenance a market that is
perceived to be unfair and must be allowed to enforce laws and
regulations to protect the investor and the integrity of the
system and, where these are not sufficient, to improve and
enhance them.
But, as the experience of many countries has shown, the
regulators cannot exercise their functions independently when
the regulatees are either owned by the state or the businesses
have close connections with the state or the political powers.
Of greater significance is that quality firms that could
otherwise provide competition may look to other markets that
have a more conducive environment. Worse, good firms that
realise they are unable to compete, join in the game.
As a layman, we often assume that regulation means simply that
the regulator enforces the law against misconduct. But in
reality, the "rules of the game" for the corporation,
management, controlling and other shareholders and their
regulators are much more complex. For regulations and their
enforcement to be effective, they must fulfil certain
conditions and objectives. Ideally, they should:
* BE clear, transparent and explicit in objectives;
* HAVE legitimacy, that is have public consultation and
approval;
* PROMOTE market efficiency and a level playing field;
* HAVE due regard to regulatory burden on market participants;
* APPROPRIATELY protect small market participants, for example
consumers and investors; and
* HAVE transparency and due process in enforcement.
What we commonly mean by the rule of law really means a set of
market rules of the game laid out in a whole range of
principles, codes, rules and the law, with checks and balances
at every level.
Why are these regulatory checks and balances necessary in a
modern market society? Regulatory objectives may change with
the times and social demands. Regulatory processes to meet
these objectives, however, can become obsolete, resulting in
bureaucratic inefficiencies and high transaction costs for the
community.
Reform, de-regulation or re-regulation is therefore necessary
for innovation and competition.
Regulatory reform can come about in two fundamental ways.
First, they can come about because of financial scandals or
crises. This gives the political backing for change.
Alternatively, reform can come about be cause of vigilant
regulatory "fine-tuning." If the regulatory framework is
constantly adjusted to changing market and social needs, there
is no need for crisis response. Since reform success depends on
market support it requires the regulator to continually explain
what it is doing, and why reforms must be carried out in
consultation and partnership with the market, professional
bodies, nongovernmental organisations, universities and other
participants.
Regulatory reform requires also transparency and legitimacy.
It cannot be a solely "top-down" exercise.
Using market discipline
Market discipline comes from two inter-related forces - market
pricing and market competition. The market should be in a
position to monitor the conduct of agents and call them to
account. In well-functioning markets, the market's assessment
of corporate performance is reflected in the prices of equities
and bonds, and corporations that fail the test could find
difficulty in raising new capital, and eventually be competed
out of the market. Surveys on Asia already show that the
international market will give a premium for good corporate
governance.
Increasingly, credit rating agencies are now moving into the
area of rating corporate governance. But unfortunately,
institutional or shareholder activism is only at very early
stages of development in Asian markets.
We see, for instance, investor activist groups in South Korea
taking successful derivative suits. Even in China, the China
Securities and Regulatory Commission has announced interest in
promoting investor associations that look after minority
rights. Malaysia now has its own Badan Pengawas Pemegang Saham
Minoriti Berhad. In Hong Kong, there is a proposal being
debated for a Hong Kong Association of Minority Shareholders.
But market discipline will not work without accurate,
consistent and timely information. Nor will it work if there is
no level playing field for competitive forces to function.
In other words, market discipline cannot be deliver quality
information, transparency and level playing fields.
Transparency and accountability
Transparency, which involves the periodic release of
information on objectives, processes and results, enhances the
quality of governance at all levels - individual, corporate,
government and international.
Transparency also ensures that performance is benchmarked
against objectives, so that those entrusted with economic power
are held accountable for their responsibilities.
International investors demand that information disclosure be
up to international standards. And international financial
institutions, such as the IMF and World Bank, and regional
development banks, as well as regulatory bodies and standard
setters, such as Basle Committee on Banking Supervision, are
now increasingly benchmarking economies and markets according
to international standards.
Through technology, the market now allows everyone the freedom
to choose. At the local level, the corporation or the market
authorities can choose to meet local standards or global
standards. If you wish to tap international capital, then you
have to meet international standards.
The international investor and lender also have freedom of
choice. If they are not confident about the level of
transparency and accountability, and believe, rightly or
wrongly, that decisions made by firms or markets they invest in
are taken against their interests, then they will simply exit
that particular investment or market. The market can be brutal
in its judgment.
In today's environment of rapid change, we need to remind
ourselves that the delivery of value and performance - the
fulfilment of trust and confidence, is a delicate combination
of self-discipline, regulatory discipline and market
discipline. Such changes are as much changes of mind-set, as
changes in social and regulatory processes.
If Asian markets are to thrive and deliver the next Miracle,
then we have to ensure that the checks and balances of
transparency, accountability and due processes exist to enable
us to match global competitiveness.
If we succeed, we can take Asia to its rightful place in the
global market place. If we fail, we have only ourselves to
blame.
|