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 Mer on Thursday November 28 2019, @10:28PM (2 children)
Wait, why wouldn't slavery be economically efficient? You have full time employees, you have to pay them a living wage, whether or not the standards of living their wage can afford is acceptable is another debate but they must afford rent, food and taxes. Without even considering the fact that you can squeeze more hours of a slave than you can out of an employee and that you don't need to spend extra on a slave for recreation after their living needs are fulfilled, you'd be saving because your slaves could be lodged near their place of work in communal housing and eat communal meals.
I'm pretty certain that if slavery is inefficient it's because of the application, not because slavery is inherently a bad idea from the point of view of pure economical efficiency.
And yes, as I write this I realise how much this sounds similar to "true communism has never been tried"
Shut up!, he explained.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:52PM
This is a place to start. [fee.org] The short answer is: It's complicated.
(Score: 3, Informative) by dry on Friday November 29 2019, @03:44AM
You have to invest in slaves generally, there are exceptions such as during a war. when you can capture new slaves to replace the ones you worked to death. Generally though, you have to look after your slaves from birth to death, train them, guard them (both from thieves and the slaves running away), look after them when sick etc. With employees, the government or workers family is responsible for most of that, you hire them already trained, use them up and get rid of them.