The gross corporate misdemeanors reported by Indian and overseas financial analysts make it imperative to revisit the process of appointment of independent directors and auditors—statutory and internal
The CBDT (Central Board of Direct Taxes) chairman-headed report on black money suggestion to set up a regulator to empanel statutory auditors for corporate India is a long overdue solution to the gross financial irregularities resulting in massive corporate frauds in GTB, Satyam and now Addidas-Reebook.
Corporate practices and good governance norms mandate that the board of directors induct some directors and appoint statutory auditors, both of which are expected to be truly independent, unconnected with companies/promoters/managements, completely free of conflicts of interests and insulated from the influences of the promoters or company management.
The most important and critical cogs in the wheel of good corporate governance are the offices of the statutory and internal auditors of companies who are well-read and experienced accounting and audit professionals in their own right having audited entities across the board and not anyone just practicing taxation.
The stake holders have tremendous of expectations from the auditors—both statutory as well as internal. The degree of care and diligence expected from both these functionaries has undergone sea change the world over. The stake holders, who are now more than the majority shareholders, no longer expect the auditors to provide them clean bills of health to corporate managements as was done hitherto. This is more particularly when more and more gross financial irregularities have been coming to light post audit. It began in the West with Lehman Brothers, Enron, Tyson, BCCI, Palmart, et al. In India with GTB and Satyam, and latest on the list Adidas-Reebok.
The reports of gross corporate misdemenours reported by Indian and overseas financial analysts—the mismanagement in a domestic airline company, different set of audited numbers submitted to the authorities by a telcom company, the veracity of results of a listed reality company questioned, alleged irregularities in a footwear company resulting in criminal complaints, all make it imperative to revisit the process of appointment and subsequent renewals of the auditors.
The other critical issue is—how long should the company managements alone be entitled to continue with the present practice of appointments of the independent directors and auditors only by an internal proposal moved by the board of directors? More particularly when both the directors as well as auditors being emboldened to their appointers—the company boards and managements and the appointees forfeiting whatever is left of the modicum of independence.
An independent regulator or body or panel has to maintain a data bank of eminent personalities and auditors to bring about more transparent appointments of independent directors and auditors more particularly for widely held companies with high public stakes. This appointment panel ought to be put in place in consultation with the regulators like SEBI, IRDA, TRAI, RBI, ICAI and ICSI.
Today there exits listings of audit firms with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) containing authentic data. Similar listing of eminent qualified and experienced personalities needs to be created for selecting independent directors. It can be culled from retired auditors, directors and executives. The panel can propose at least three names to enable the company to select one.
This idea of outside oversight in the monitoring of company affairs has brought about the concept of independent directors who are eminent personalities and/or professionals to bring in vital inputs and advice on the boards of companies that generally constitute promoters’ or managements’ appointees as other members of the board of directors. Independent directors are considered critical pillars of corporate governance as effective tools of an oversight body to protect the interest of stakeholders like investors at large, more particularly minority interests, vendors, suppliers, employees and lenders.
Being external and unbiased, the independent directors are expected to bring about different perspectives and provide fillip with their qualifications and expertise striking a right balance between growth and governance. As effective contributors they bring in wider knowledge, experience, insight, skills and industry expertise for the company to profit when they voice genuine concerns, put out searching questions. They are also expected to have constant interaction with executive management, review company and industry publications—particularly from competitors and not merely accept the data submitted in the board folders containing discussion papers but to spend quality time, not merely putting in token presence or act as ornamental artifacts in the board room to collect fat sitting fees and commissions.
An AT Kearney study in 2007 reported that only 39% listed Indian companies followed any formal process of selecting members to their boards and that a whopping 90% of the so-called independent directors were picked out of the old boys’ networks of company chairmen or CEOs. There is a raging controversy over the appointment of a close relative on the board of Indian Hotels which violates the unchartered ‘independence’ norms. Taking advantage of grey areas?
This seeks to address the concerns of conflicts of interests in public appointments to protect the stake holders.
(Nagesh Kini is a Mumbai-based chartered accountant turned activist.)
M&M's first quarter total income on standalone basis also rose up 39.3% to Rs9,367.39 crore
New Delhi: Auto major Mahindra & Mahindra (M&M) on Wednesday reported 19.96% increase in its standalone net profit for the quarter ended June 2012, at Rs 725.64 crore, reports PTI.
The company had posted a net profit of Rs604.88 crore in the same period last year, M&M said in a filing to the BSE.
The standalone total income during the first quarter also went up 39.3% to Rs9,367.39 crore from Rs6,727.08 crore in the year-ago period, it added.
Bharti Airtel says its revenues in India have been depressed due to hyper-competition and recent regulatory and tax developments
Mumbai: Telecom operator Bharti Airtel's net profit fell for the tenth quarter in a row, declining 37% to Rs762.2 crore for the quarter ended June 2012, reports PTI.
It had posted a net profit of Rs1,215.2 crore in the same period last fiscal, Bharti Airtel said in a statement.
The total revenues were, however, up by 14% to Rs19,350 crore in the quarter against Rs16,975 crore in Q1 FY12, marked by growth of 31.5% in Africa and 44.2% increase in mobile data revenues from India.
“Telecom revenues in India have been depressed due to hyper-competition and recent regulatory and tax developments. Despite these adverse developments, Airtel has kept its focus on network expansion, market investments, superior customer experience and new product innovations,” Bharti Airtel Chairman and Managing Director Sunil Bharti Mittal said.
The company said the revenues in India during the quarter were impacted by two significant changes — TRAI guidelines around processing fees which restricts the sales of 'combo packs' and hike in service tax from 10.3% to 12.36%, effective 1 April 2012.
The hike caused all telecom services to become dearer by nearly 2%, with the entire additional levy being passed to the exchequer.
Africa revenues grew by 31.5%, driven by strong operational performance in the last year and favourable currency movements.
“However, economic and currency headwinds are presently evident in key markets as a result of the eurozone crisis, lower aid and grants, rising inflation and political issues in some countries.
“With this in mind, the company intensified market operations, advertising, network rollouts, as well as new growth initiatives such as 3G, airtel money and Rwanda,” the company said.
The company’s total subscriber base across mobile, telemedia and digital TV services in India, South Asia and Africa stood at 260.71 million at the end of June 2012.