ISS corporate governance risk profiling: Testing the caretaker persona

Abstract

Controlling corporate governance decision-making RISK is one of the prime safeguarding directives in the PCAOB’s requirement that the financials of Market Trading Firms [MTFs] are reasonably free from material error and thus are reliable indications of the results of operations. In this Corporate Governance Risk [CGR] context, it is important to understand the Interacting- & Integrated-Systemic Components of CGR and how they have evolved over time. We examine these aspects from Circa 1985 to date. We argue that the Driving Control System is: The Firm’s decision-making system of Internal Control over Financial Reporting [ICoFR] that impacts the Nature of CGR—to wit, Increasing CGRisk results as management experiences Increasing difficulties in maintaining adequate ICoFR. We examine the historical development of these systemic components and how they have spawned an Economic Sector of Firms that Rate & Score MTFs on the nature of their CGR profile, one currently predominate aspect of which is: The Nature of the MTF’s Caretaker Persona. With this as context, we present a duel-effect inferential design that examines the reliability of the Bloomberg™ Market Navigation Platform’s Institutional Shareholder Services™ [ISS]-Profiler as an information-link to be used in selecting MTFs to create CGR-sensitive Investment Portfolios. Our inferential results suggest for the MTFs in the ISS-Groups [{1: Lowest CGR} & {5: Mid-Level CGR} & {10: Highest CGR]}, it is likely that: (i) The decisions made by all involved in Management’s System of ICoFR, in its current COSO-version, are reflective of these MTF’s Caretaker Personas, (ii) The effects of these Caretaker Personas are analytically perceptible as reflected in the MTF’s Financials, and (iii) are aligned with the expected Nature of the ISS-Groups.

Keywords: {'name': 'ICoFR Profile De-Coding, Reverse Profiling'}

Authors & affiliations

Chuo-Hsuan Lee
Affiliation not supplied

Edward Lusk
Affiliation not supplied

Deposited references

Supplied references, not a list of publications citing this article.

Dann, T., & Galer, D. (2022). What CFOs should consider concerning ESG reporting. The CPA Journal, J/A, 10–17.

DOI: 10.1108/MEDAR-05-2020-0899

DOI: 10.1108/SAMPJ-03-2021-0095

DOI: 10.3390/risks12020033

Foltin, C., & Holtzblatt, M. (2022). The relevance and reliability of ESG reporting. The CPA Journal, J/A, 42–47.

DOI: 10.33423/jaf.v24i3.7118

DOI: 10.1017/S0022109020000630

DOI: 10.1108/JIBR-02-2021-0060

DOI: 10.5539/ijef.v14n12p40

DOI: 10.1108/MBR-11-2021-0148

DOI: 10.1007/s11356-023-27772-x

DOI: 10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.83.1005

DOI: 10.37502/IJSMR.2021.4505

DOI: 10.14738/abr.94.9952

DOI: 10.1108/SAMPJ-07-2021-0268

Mezzio, S. S., Kenner, J., Veltmann, A., & Morejon, J. I. (2022). ESG integration and small business. The CPA Journal, J/A, 18–23.

DOI: 10.3390/jrfm16100429

DOI: 10.46852/0424-2513.3.2023.11

Ritter, G. (2023). Proxy season: Record proposals, sliding support. Pharmaceutical Executive, 43(12).

DOI: 10.1007/s10668-021-01602-x

DOI: 10.3846/jbem.2022.16202

Soroosh, J. (2022). An overview of the SEC Climate-Related Disclosures. The CPA Journal, J/A, 27–33.

DOI: 10.12660/rbfin.v21n1.2023.85688

DOI: 10.1108/AJAR-12-2021-0263

DOI: 10.1108/IJPPM-03-2021-0177

DOI: 10.58745/riber_12-4_1-16

DOI: 10.1108/IJMF-07-2021-0339

DOI: 10.3390/jrfm17080338