Latest news with #corporategovernance
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Despite Having 2 Degrees, Warren Buffett Doesn't Care Where You Went to College: ‘I Never Look at Where a Candidate Has Gone to School'
Warren Buffett, the legendary chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.B) (BRK.A), has long been recognized for his unconventional yet highly effective leadership style. In his 2024 shareholder letter, Buffett offered a candid perspective on one of the most important aspects of corporate governance: 'One further point in our CEO selections: I never look at where a candidate has gone to school. Never!' Tesla's Robotaxis Reportedly Sped and Veered Into the Wrong Lanes. Does This Crush the Bull Case for TSLA Stock? Dear Micron Stock Fans, Mark Your Calendars for June 25 Warren Buffett Warns 'Thumbsucking' is 'the Cardinal Sin' in Business Because It's 'Delaying the Correction of Mistakes' Markets move fast. Keep up by reading our FREE midday Barchart Brief newsletter for exclusive charts, analysis, and headlines. This statement is emblematic of Buffett's broader philosophy: true leadership and managerial excellence are not defined by prestigious degrees, but by integrity, competence, and a proven track record. Buffett's own history provides ample evidence for why this approach has become a cornerstone of Berkshire Hathaway's enduring success. Buffett's career has been marked by a preference for straightforward, understandable businesses and managers who demonstrate honesty, ambition, and operational skill. He has repeatedly stressed that a company's long-term prosperity hinges more on the quality of its people than on their academic credentials. This view is rooted in decades of experience, including his celebrated partnerships with managers like Pete Liegl of Forest River, Ajit Jain in insurance, and his late vice chairman Charlie Munger. These leaders, often without Ivy League backgrounds, have delivered extraordinary results through their dedication and business acumen. Buffett's hiring philosophy is further illustrated by his historical anecdotes. During the Salomon Brothers crisis in the early 1990s, Buffett was tasked with selecting a new CEO under immense pressure. He famously ignored resumes and academic records, focusing instead on the candidates' character, judgment, and ability to handle complex situations. This approach, he has explained, ensures that only those with the right values and temperament are entrusted with leadership roles. The emphasis on character over credentials is echoed in Buffett's oft-cited criteria for hiring: intelligence, initiative, and — most importantly — integrity. Without integrity, he has warned, the other qualities can become liabilities. This principle has guided not only CEO succession at Berkshire, but also the company's broader investment and management decisions. Buffett's perspective is particularly relevant in today's corporate environment, where boards often prioritize academic pedigree and technical expertise. While these attributes can be valuable, Buffett's experience suggests that they are no substitute for sound judgment, ethical leadership, and a commitment to shareholders. His upcoming succession plan, with Greg Abel set to take over as CEO in 2026, reflects this ethos: Abel's rise was based on decades of performance and alignment with Berkshire's culture, not on where he went to school. In a business world increasingly focused on credentials, Buffett's timeless advice serves as a reminder that the true measure of a leader lies in their actions, values, and results — not the name on their diploma. On the date of publication, Caleb Naysmith did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on
The Independent
19 hours ago
- Business
- The Independent
UK's financial watchdog launches probe into troubled Wood Group
Engineering giant Wood Group is being investigated by the UK's financial watchdog following an independent review which unearthed 'cultural failings' with its accounting practices. The Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) probe will look into the period between January 2023 and November 2024. The troubled Scottish group, which provides oilfield and engineering services, warned in April that it was having to restate its accounts from previous years. It also delayed the publication of results for the 2024 financial year, which were due at the end of April, meaning its shares have been suspended from trading on the London Stock Exchange since. This followed an independent review carried out by Deloitte finding 'material weaknesses and failures in the group's financial culture' within its projects business unit and the engagement with its group finance team. This included 'inappropriate management pressure' to maintain previously reported positions and 'over-optimism and/ or lack of evidence in respect of accounting judgements'. 'The cultural failings appear to have led to instances of information being inappropriately withheld from, and unreliable information being provided to, Wood's auditors,' the results found. The firm stressed there has since been significant change within the group and steps taken to address the failings discovered. Meanwhile, Aberdeen-based Wood Group has been the subject of a takeover approach by Dubai-based buyer Sidara. The latest offer, received in April, valued the company at around £242 million. A year ago, Sidara made a £1.56 billion takeover approach before talks collapsed – and Wood Group's share price has plummeted since.
South China Morning Post
a day ago
- Business
- South China Morning Post
Alibaba trims key governance body as it embraces AI and bets on younger leaders
Alibaba Group Holding has trimmed its partnership – a key corporate governance body for the e-commerce and artificial intelligence (AI) giant – as it embraces younger business leaders and strives to return to a start-up mindset. Advertisement Nine executives and company veterans – including former CEO Daniel Zhang Yong, 53, and fellow co-founders Trudy Dai Shan, 48, and Lucy Peng Lei, 51, who started the company with Jack Ma in 1999 – have exited the partnership, according to Alibaba's annual report released late on Thursday. The reduction brings the number of partners down from 26 to 17. Alibaba owns the South China Morning Post. Many of the departing partners are no longer in leading roles in the company's major business segments. Daniel Zhang Yong, former CEO and chairman of Alibaba. Photo: Winson Wong Zhang, who became CEO in 2015 and chairman in 2019, stepped down from both roles in 2023. Dai, an early aide to Ma, took over as CEO of the domestic e-commerce unit, Taobao and Tmall Group, in early 2023, but was replaced by group CEO Eddie Wu Yongming later that year. Advertisement Others who left the partnership include Maggie Wu Wei, director of the digital entertainment unit, and Yu Yongfu, former head of local services.
Globe and Mail
2 days ago
- Business
- Globe and Mail
Seabridge Gold Reports on Results of Annual Meeting of Shareholders
Toronto, Ontario--(Newsfile Corp. - June 26, 2025) - Seabridge Gold (TSX: SEA) (NYSE: SA) (the "Company") today provided the results of its annual general meeting of shareholders held on June 25, 2025. A total of 70,526,925 common shares were represented at the meeting, representing 70.15% of the issued and outstanding common shares of the Company on the record date. All matters presented for approval at the meeting were duly authorized and approved, as follows: To Fix the Number of Directors of the Company at ten (99.14% votes for); Election of all of management's nominees to the board of directors of the Company; Director Votes For Votes Against Percentage For Trace J. Arlaud 53,457,425 611,555 98.87% Matthew Coon Come 53,425,307 643,672 98.81% Rudi P. Fronk 53,235,868 833,110 98.46% M. Colin Joudrie 53,718,167 350,813 99.35% Melanie R. Miller 53,703,236 365,744 99.32% Clem A. Pelletier 53,720,659 348,321 99.36% Julie Robertson 53,700,508 368,471 99.32% John W. Sabine 50,297,813 3,771,166 93.03% Gary A. Sugar 53,761,058 307,921 99.43% Carol T. Willson 53,413,099 655,880 98.79% Appointment of KPMG LLP as auditor of the Company for the ensuing year (98.29% votes for); Authorization of the directors to fix the auditors remuneration (98.64% votes for); Approve the adoption of a new By-law for the Corporation (63.44% votes for); Approval, on an advisory basis, of the Corporation's approach on executive compensation (93.52% votes for). A total of 16,457,945 shares were "non-votes" under U.S. proxy rules and were not cast with respect to the election of each of the directors, the approval of the adoption of the new By-Law or the advisory vote on executive compensation. Seabridge Chairman and CEO Rudi Fronk noted the departure of long-time board members Mr. Jay Layman and Mr. Eliseo Gonzalez Urien and their new roles as Board advisors. Mr. Layman worked as President and COO for over 10 years and has served as a director of Seabridge for over 13 years. During his tenure he made significant contributions to the growth and strategic direction of Seabridge. Mr. Gonzalez-Urien is an accomplished and enthusiastic geologist who has made a remarkable contribution to the evolution of Seabridge, particularly to our exploration successes, since he first became a director 19 years ago. "Seabridge has been fortunate to have had the benefit of their guidance for such a long time and, on behalf of all of our shareholders, I thank them for all they have done for us." To facilitate a smooth transition at the Board level, both have agreed to serve as advisors to the board for an additional year. At the same time, we are delighted to have Mr. Colin Joudrie join our board. Mr. Joudrie has over 35 years of experience in the mining industry in roles that will enable him to make a substantive contribution to the board's consideration of technical matters, joint venture negotiation and management of large project development, as well as property evaluation and acquisitions. Seabridge holds a 100% interest in several North American gold projects. Seabridge's assets include the KSM and Iskut projects located in northwest British Columbia, Canada's "Golden Triangle", the Courageous Lake project located in Canada's Northwest Territories, the Snowstorm project in the Getchell Gold Belt of Northern Nevada and the 3 Aces project set in the Yukon Territory. For a full breakdown of Seabridge's Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources by category please visit the Company's website at None of the Toronto Stock Exchange, New York Stock Exchange, or their Regulation Services Providers accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release. ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD "Rudi Fronk" Chairman and C.E.O.
Forbes
2 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Why AI Illiterate Directors Are The New Liability For Boards Today
Twenty-three years after Sarbanes-Oxley mandated financial experts on audit committees, boards face an even more transformative moment. But unlike the post-Enron era when adding one qualified financial expert sufficed, the AI revolution demands something far more radical: every director must become AI literate, or risk becoming a liability in the intelligence age. I just came back for the Stanford Directors' College, the premier executive education program for directors and senior executives of publicly traded firms. Now in its thirtieth year, this year's speakers included Reed Hastings, (Chairman, Co-Founder & Former CEO, Netflix; Director, Anthropic), Michael Sentonas (President, Crowdstrike), Maggie Wilderotter (Chairman, Docusign; Director, Costco, Fortinet and Sana Biotechnology), John Donahoe (Former CEO, Nike, ServiceNow, and eBay; Former Chairman, PayPal) and Condoleezza Rice (Director, Hoover Institution; Former U.S. Secretary of State). Organized by Stanford Law Professor Joseph Grundfest and the Co-Executive Director of Stanford's Rock Center for Corporate Governance Amanda Packel, the program addresses a broad range of problems that confront modern boards. The topics are extensive, including the board's role in setting business strategy, CEO and board succession, crisis management, techniques for controlling legal liability, challenges posed by activist investors, boardroom dynamics, international trade issues, the global economy, and cybersecurity threats. However, the topic that everyone wanted to discuss was AI. Joseph A. Grundfest, (Co-Director, Stanford Directors' College; W.A. Franke Professor of Law and ... More Business, Emeritus, Stanford Law School; Senior Faculty, Rock Center for Corporate Governance), interviews Reed Hastings (Chairman, Co-Founder & Former CEO, Netflix; Director, Anthropic) at the 2025 Stanford Directors' College. The stakes couldn't be higher. While traditional boards debate AI risks in quarterly meetings, a new breed of AI-first competitors operates at algorithmic speed. Consider Cursor, which reached $500 million in annual recurring revenue with just 60 employees, or Cognition Labs, valued at $4 billion with only 10 people. These aren't just 'unicorns', they're the harbingers of a fundamental shift in how AI-first businesses operate. The Sarbanes-Oxley parallel that boards are missing After Enron's collapse, the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) act required boards to include at least one "qualified financial expert" who understood GAAP, financial statements, and internal controls. Companies either complied or publicly explained why they lacked such expertise—a powerful mechanism that transformed board composition within five years. Today's AI challenge dwarfs that financial literacy mandate. Unlike accounting expertise that could be compartmentalized to audit committees, AI permeates every business function. When algorithms make thousands of decisions daily across marketing, operations, HR, and customer service, delegating oversight to a single "tech expert" becomes not just inadequate but dangerous. The data reveals a governance crisis in motion. According to ISS analysis, only 31% of S&P 500 companies disclosed any board oversight of AI in 2024 and a mere 11% reported explicit full board or committee oversight. This despite an 84% year-over-year increase in such disclosures, suggesting boards are scrambling to catch up. Investors are tracking (and targeting) AI governance gaps Institutional investors have moved from encouragement to enforcement. BlackRock's 2025 proxy voting guidelines emphasize board composition must reflect necessary "experiences, perspectives, and skillsets," with explicit warnings about voting against directors at companies that are "outliers compared to market norms." Vanguard and State Street have issued similar guidance, while Glass Lewis added a new AI governance section to its 2025 policies. Large institutional investors, such as BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, have varying policies ... More on board oversight of material risks and are now looking at AI governance. The enforcement mechanism? Universal proxy cards, mandatory since September 2022, enable surgical strikes against individual directors. Activists launched 243 campaigns in 2024 (the highest total since 2018's record of 249 campaigns), with technology sector campaigns up 15.9% year-over-year. Boards with "skills gaps related to areas where the company is underperforming" face the highest vulnerability - and nothing screams skills gap louder than AI illiteracy while competitors automate core functions. Consider what happened in 2024: 27 CEOs resigned due to activist pressure, up from 24 in 2023 and well above the four-year average of 16. The percentage of S&P 500 CEO resignations linked to activist activity has tripled since 2020. The message is clear: governance failures have consequences, and AI governance represents the next frontier for activist campaigns. The existential threat boards aren't seeing Here's the scenario keeping forward-thinking directors awake: while your board debates whether to form an AI committee, a three-person startup with 100+ AI agents is systematically capturing your market share. This isn't hyperbole. In legal services, AI achieves 100x productivity gains, reducing document review from 16 hours to 3-4 minutes. Harvey AI raised $300 million at a $3 billion valuation, while Crosby promises contract review in under an hour. In software development, companies report 60% faster cycle times and 50% fewer production errors. Salesforce aims to deploy one billion AI agents within 12 months, with each agent costing $2 per conversation versus human customer service representatives. The economics are devastating for traditional business models. AI-first companies operate with 80-95% lower operational costs while achieving comparable or superior output. They reach $100 million in annual recurring revenue in 12-18 months versus the traditional 5-10 years. When Cursor generates nearly a billion lines of working code daily, traditional software companies' armies of developers become competitive liabilities, not assets. Why traditional IT governance fails for AI Boards accustomed to delegating technology oversight to CIOs or audit committees face a rude awakening. Traditional IT governance focuses on infrastructure, cybersecurity, and compliance (the "what" of technology management). AI governance requires understanding the 'should' - whether AI capabilities should be deployed, how they impact stakeholders, and what ethical boundaries must be maintained. The fundamental difference: IT systems follow rules; AI systems learn and evolve. When Microsoft's Tay chatbot learned toxic behavior from social media in 2016, it wasn't a coding error, it was a governance failure. When COMPAS sentencing software showed racial bias, it wasn't a bug but rather inadequate board oversight of algorithmic decision-making. Stanford's Institute for Human-Centered AI research confirms that AI governance can't be delegated like financial oversight. AI creates "network effects" where individual algorithms interact unpredictably. Traditional governance assumes isolated systems; AI governance must address systemic risks from interconnected algorithms making real-time decisions across the enterprise. The coming wave of Qualified Technology Experts Just as SOX created demand for Qualified Financial Experts (QFEs), the AI revolution is spawning a new designation: Qualified Technology Experts (QTEs). The market dynamics favor early movers. Spencer Stuart's 2024 Board Index shows 16% of new S&P 500 independent directors brought digital/technology transformation expertise versus only 8% with traditional P&L leadership. The scarcity is acute: requiring both technology expertise and prior board experience creates a severe talent shortage. This presents both risk and opportunity. For incumbent directors, AI illiteracy becomes a liability targetable by activists. For business-savvy technology leaders or tech-savvy business leaders, board service offers unprecedented opportunities. As one search consultant noted, 'Technology roles offer pathways for underrepresented groups to join boards' - diversity through capability rather than tokenism. The regulatory tsunami building momentum The SEC has elevated AI to a top 2025 examination priority, with enforcement actions against companies making false AI claims. Former SEC Chair Gary Gentler's warning that "false claims about AI hurt investors and undermine market integrity" was just the beginning about concerns about the rise of 'AI washing,' or exaggerating and misrepresenting the use of AI. The Commission sent comments to 56 companies regarding AI disclosures, with 61% requesting clarification on AI usage and risks. The SEC is increasing concerned about "AI washing" and AI disclosures Internationally, the EU AI Act establishes the world's first comprehensive AI regulatory framework, with board-level accountability requirements taking effect through 2026. Like GDPR, its extraterritorial reach affects global companies. Hong Kong's Monetary Authority already requires board accountability for AI-driven decisions, while New York's Department of Financial Services mandates AI risk oversight for insurance companies. The pattern is unmistakable: just as Enron triggered SOX, AI governance failures will trigger mandatory expertise requirements. The only question is whether boards act proactively or wait for the next scandal to force their hand. The board education imperative: From nice-to-have to survival skill The data reveals a dangerous disconnect. While nearly 70% of directors trust management's AI execution skills, only 50% feel adequately informed about AI-related risks. Worse, almost 50% of boards haven't discussed AI in the past year despite mounting stakeholder pressure. While many academic institutions and trade orgs are trying to fill this need, these traditional director education models (including annual conferences and occasional briefings) can't match the exponential speed of AI's evolution. Boards need continuous learning mechanisms, regular AI strategy sessions, and direct access to expertise. The choice: Lead the transformation or become its casualty The parallels to Sarbanes-Oxley are instructive but incomplete. Financial literacy requirements responded to past failures; AI literacy requirements must anticipate future transformation. When three-person startups with AI agent swarms can outcompete thousand-employee corporations, traditional governance models aren't ready for these existential threats. The window for proactive adaptation is closing rapidly. ISS tracks AI governance. Institutional investors demand it. Activists target its absence. Regulators prepare mandates. Most critically, AI-native competitors exploit governance gaps with algorithmic efficiency. For boards, the choice is stark: develop AI literacy now while you can shape your approach, or scramble to catch up after activists, regulators, or competitors force your hand. In the post-Enron era, boards asked, "Do we have a qualified financial expert?" In the AI era, the question becomes, "Is every director AI literate?" The answer will determine not just governance quality but corporate survival. Because in a world where algorithms drive business, directors who can't govern AI can't govern at all.
