Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday November 28 2019, @04:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the shortsighted dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday November 29 2019, @12:25AM (4 children)

    by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Friday November 29 2019, @12:25AM (#925817) Journal
    Ah, the patriarchy strikes again. You make claims without providing cites, and yet I have to. Ain't goon happen.

    "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]

    Data confirms more women have realized there are far worse things than dying alone, which is bad news for the patriarchy.

    ot long ago I had a discussion with a friend about why she married, and ultimately divorced, someone she knew wasn’t right for her. She said she bought into society’s deafening message that being with a man – any man – is better than being alone, and certainly better than dying alone, which is allegedly the worst fate anyone, especially any woman, can suffer.

    When I told her that I’ve never feared dying alone, and in fact have sometimes feared the opposite, she told me I was incredibly lucky. Because this meant I wouldn’t end up settling for a life that doesn’t actually make me happy, even if society tells me it’s supposed to.

    Apparently I’m not alone. (Pun intended!) Data confirms that more women have begun to realize that there are far worse things than dying alone, which is great news for women but bad news for the patriarchy.

    “Broke men are hurting women’s marriage prospects,” the NY Post recently declared, citing a study from the Journal of Family and Marriage. The article claimed that “most American women hope to marry” but there is a shortage of men with stable incomes and lives, making it tough for women to do so.

    CNN reports that there “are more single working women than ever,” and by 2030, according to the CDC, “45% of working women ages 25 to 44 in the United States will be single”. This inspired this spirited Twitter exchange:

    1- it's a million times better to be single than have a husband who is trash
    2- imagine being a man who thinks that women die of sadness without them lmfao
    3- being a single woman between 25-44 in the United States is-- & I'm speaking from experience-- fun as hell

    Contrary to decades of prevailing wisdom that those who marry are better off, a 2017 study published in the Journal of Women’s Health found that women who stay single or who divorce are actually healthier than those who stay married. By contrast, married men are healthier than men who are not.

    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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @01:40AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 29 2019, @01:40AM (#925843)

    “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)

      by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Friday November 29 2019, @07:50PM (#926119) Journal

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 30 2019, @04:44AM (#926285)

        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

          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday November 30 2019, @07:36PM (#926512) Journal

          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.