Even Megan McCardle laments:
I wish someone had a better answer to the question of why large institutional investors aren’t more active in corporate governance.
Here's two reasons:
1) Rational apathy
2) Lack of comparative advantage in doing so
« Whose interest? | Main | "A tragedy of untold magnitude" »
Even Megan McCardle laments:
I wish someone had a better answer to the question of why large institutional investors aren’t more active in corporate governance.
Here's two reasons:
1) Rational apathy
2) Lack of comparative advantage in doing so
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on February 8, 2008 2:53 PM.
The previous post in this blog was Whose interest?.
The next post in this blog is "A tragedy of untold magnitude".
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Comments (3)
Here's a third: fiduciary duty.
Posted by KipEsquire | February 8, 2008 3:48 PM
Posted on February 8, 2008 15:48
I've wondered why companies don't outsource their management to India and China like they do their other functions?
Posted by sam | February 8, 2008 6:06 PM
Posted on February 8, 2008 18:06
If you mean routine management functions, India and China are the fastest growing market for that, as well. The age of the U.S. management ex-pat is going away.
As far as top management positions, U.S. CEOs are already competing with top Chinese and Indian talent:
http://www.sree.net/stories/bt-gupta.html
Posted by M. Hodak | February 8, 2008 6:32 PM
Posted on February 8, 2008 18:32