Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Company Stock Prices Fall When Women Are Added To Boards Of Directors
Turns out that many companies who seek to embrace equality by any means could actually be doing their shareholders a disservice. But hey, we thought equality of outcome was a guaranteed fast track to utopia! What happened?
In fact, many companies experience stock price declines when women are added to the board of directors, Bloomberg points out.
An analysis of 14 years of market returns across almost 1,900 companies recently revealed that when companies appoint female directors, they experienced two years of stock declines. Companies saw their stock fall by an average of 2.3% just from adding one additional woman to their board.
Kaisa Snellman, an assistant professor of organizational behavior at INSEAD business school and a co-author of the study said: "Shareholders penalize these companies, despite the fact that increased gender diversity doesn't have a material effect on a company's return on assets. Nothing happens to the actual value of the companies. It's just the perceptions that change."
The study suggests that investor biases are to blame. The study asked senior managers with MBAs to read fictional press releases announcing new board members. The statements were identical, but for the gender of the incoming director.Participants said that men were more likely to care about profits and less about social values, while women were deemed to be "softer".
Snellman continued: "If anyone is biased, it is the market. Investors should consider organizations that add women and other under-represented groups to their boards because there's a good chance that company is being undervalued."
Despite this study's findings, other non-academic reports over the years have suggested that diverse leadership results in corporate success. A McKinsey analysis concluded that board diversity correlates with positive financial performance and a 2019 Credit Suisse report noted a "performance premium for board diversity".
These findings have prompted investors like BlackRock to push for diversity on boards. Women now account for more than 25% of board members on the S&P 500 and 20% of boards globally.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday November 28 2019, @09:11PM (7 children)
Then how do you explain the pay gap for women who never have children? Same number of years of experience. Same career objectives as men, so your theory is just more patriarchal bs.
But that's okay. Men are becoming superfluous to the economy. For years, 3 women have graduated for every 2 men. Traditional male jobs are the ones in danger of disappearing (those 8 million driving jobs will be mostly gone in 15 years). Birthrate is declining, which means less need for new housing, so fewer construction jobs. The average half-life of a software developer continues to trend down, so you'd better have a second career lined up that will see you through your 40s and beyond, because there are not enough management jobs for old coders.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @10:49PM (6 children)
Women, even childless ones, on average work fewer hours than men in similar situations.
You're going to need to provide some references if you want to make headway, because every explanation of the cause of the "gender pay gap" has pinned the turning point as "motherhood", and that, pre-motherhood, women are paid 1-2% more than men at the same level and for the same amount of work.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday November 29 2019, @12:25AM (4 children)
"every explanation" is just that - an explanation without providing any hard data, because "everyone knows."
Also, hours worked has nothing to do with productivity. Why not re-read the latest study that shows a 4-day work week with 5 days pay makes people more productive. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/microsoft-tried-4-day-work-week-productivity-soared/. [cbsnews.com]
The problem women encounter is the "second shift", where even if the guy is unemployed, she's still expected to do the housework. It's called the "second shift", and that 2 hours of extra work every day adds up.
Women are fed up, and realizing that the cultural expectations of needing a man in our lives is bullshit [theguardian.com]
It's almost like men are emotional parasites who suck the health out of women for their own benefit - and there's some truth to that. Men still assume that they can retire from work, but women cannot retire from housework. This is part of the "second shift" problem, and one reason women are staying single.
It helps explain the continually falling birthrate in a previous story.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @01:40AM (3 children)
“Broke men are hurting women’s marriage prospects,”
...
"1- it's a million times better to be single than have a husband who is trash"
Because if a male isn't rich then he's trash?
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday November 29 2019, @07:50PM (2 children)
People (of any combination of sexes) can live together without the legal complications marriage brings. But now that women are often earning more than men, they're just employing the same calculus men have been using for generations. "Why buy the bull when you can get the sex for free?"
There's a difference between earning their keep and being rich. But there's not much attractive today in families where you need two incomes to survive, in a broke guy whose best hope is to drive an Uber until that job disappears from automation.
Same as guys wanting women 20 years younger than them. Women can do the math - the guy will be needing to have his diapers changed while she's still got plenty of years ahead of her. It's a bad deal all around for the woman.
A guy is 30 - his ideal woman is 20. A guy is 50 - his ideal woman is 20. A guy is 70 - he still wants a "babe". There's something wrong here, and it's not the women.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 30 2019, @04:44AM (1 child)
There's nothing wrong here. You're projecting your ideal world onto the real one. That never works. Of course males are after the most capable females (best breeding) and females are after the most capable males (highly paid thus more secure in theory). Your double standard of it's okay for women to have their preferences but men's preferences are wrong is bullshit.
And where did you ladies ever get the idea that you won't be dying alone? Men don't live as long as women.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday November 30 2019, @07:36PM
Gross misinterpretation of what I wrote. Men are free to have their preferences, and now women are smartening up and setting criteria that suit us more. No more need to "date downward" to get a guy because more and more, marriage is obsolete. Dead. Not even pining for the fjords.
Each individual is free to act in their own best self-interest. If you have a problem with that, and that it doesn't meet the male goal of having a woman much younger than him, tough shit. Either start accepting that you'll have to consider older women as well, or stay single. Your call.
Never said women wouldn't be dying alone. Just that there's absolutely no point in observing the "man must be older than woman" convention. It harms women by leaving them alone for decades. Screw that.
Mathematically, for there to be an even chance of either party predeceasing the other, women should be 4 years older than men (YMMV depending on country). Are you going to say that's not fair?
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @06:00AM
"Women, even childless ones, on average work fewer hours than men in similar situations."
[citation needed]