Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Marketwatch)   NASDAQ proposes to delist most of its constituent companies   (marketwatch.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, NASDAQ, Nasdaq Inc., Nasdaq exchange, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Exchange Commission, Nasdaq companies, Nasdaq's purpose, Stock  
•       •       •

983 clicks; posted to Business » on 01 Dec 2020 at 6:50 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



15 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-12-01 6:34:33 PM  
the maga crew going to complain about wokeness and sell off all their tech stocks!

oh wait, they don't have any
 
2020-12-01 7:50:18 PM  
Well, yeah, it's almost like members of corporate boards run the country.
 
2020-12-01 8:25:02 PM  
The typical board size is around nine people. NASDAQ is requesting, and the companies can give reasons why they do not, to have one woman or one underrepresented minority. So really NASDAQ is requesting on average 22% of the board to be made up of one person who is part of 51% of the US population or 32% of the US population. Doesn't seem that outrageous to me.
 
2020-12-01 9:16:06 PM  
The want to make the companies give reasons for not being diverse; does the reason matter? Will they delist if the reason isn't acceptable?

I can see every company just immediately going "Our board does not meet Nasdaq diversity guidelines due to <reason made up by lawyer>" and calling it a day. It's not like they care about diversity on their board. They've been ignoring people calling them on it for years. Why would they care about Nasdaq scolding them?

What will Nasdaq do if a whole bunch of companies just move exchanges instead?
 
2020-12-01 9:28:13 PM  
One person can serve on many, many boards, this is a great opportunity for a few well-connected people who either meet the NASDAQ criteria, or are willing to self-identify as meeting one of them.

Elliott picked the wrong week for his announcement.
 
2020-12-01 9:33:39 PM  
We don't care what you know or can do, just what label you go by and what you look like.
 
2020-12-01 9:34:46 PM  

trialpha: The want to make the companies give reasons for not being diverse; does the reason matter? Will they delist if the reason isn't acceptable?

I can see every company just immediately going "Our board does not meet Nasdaq diversity guidelines due to <reason made up by lawyer>" and calling it a day. It's not like they care about diversity on their board. They've been ignoring people calling them on it for years. Why would they care about Nasdaq scolding them?

What will Nasdaq do if a whole bunch of companies just move exchanges instead?


Is that how it works? You can just move to a different exchange? Like going from Facebook to Parlor, or whatever it's called? I did not know that.
 
2020-12-01 10:25:50 PM  

majestic: Is that how it works? You can just move to a different exchange?


Yup.  NYSE used to be the prestige exchange, companies would be listed on NASDAQ just to get in a position to where they could jump to NYSE.  Since MCI declined to make the switch and other big time tech companies went NASDAQ, NASDAQ became prestige.
 
2020-12-01 10:34:50 PM  
I believe Elizabeth Holmes if available
 
2020-12-01 11:09:28 PM  
This is bad news for asians
 
2020-12-01 11:40:02 PM  

Fano: This is bad news for asians


Maybe not:

Nasdaq defines "underrepresented minority" as an individual who self-identifies in one or more of the following groups: Black or African American, Hispanic or Latinx, Asian, Native American or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander or Two or More Races or Ethnicities.

That's a really roundabout way to say "no more white males until you meet the quota".
 
2020-12-01 11:46:19 PM  

ChicagoKev: Fano: This is bad news for asians

Maybe not:

Nasdaq defines "underrepresented minority" as an individual who self-identifies in one or more of the following groups: Black or African American, Hispanic or Latinx, Asian, Native American or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander or Two or More Races or Ethnicities.

That's a really roundabout way to say "no more white males until you meet the quota".


I stand corrected, and glad to be so. "Underrepresented minorities " is so often used as a dogwhistle for not including them.
 
2020-12-02 6:12:27 AM  

jjorsett: We don't care what you know or can do, just what label you go by and what you look like.


More accurately: We don't believe that only white men can know or can do things at a high level, so if your hires are exclusively white and male, that suggests insidious exclusion of women and minorities.
 
2020-12-02 8:58:07 AM  

IntelDataDude: The typical board size is around nine people. NASDAQ is requesting, and the companies can give reasons why they do not, to have one woman or one underrepresented minority. So really NASDAQ is requesting on average 22% of the board to be made up of one person who is part of 51% of the US population or 32% of the US population. Doesn't seem that outrageous to me.


Except what authority does NASDAQ have?

It sounds like a great way to lose customers, especially foreign ones - for whom they made an exception that they can have 2 women instead of LGBTQ or "minoroty"

/like in Saudi where it's illegal or China where 90% of the country is Han
 
2020-12-02 6:18:21 PM  

ColonelCathcart: IntelDataDude: The typical board size is around nine people. NASDAQ is requesting, and the companies can give reasons why they do not, to have one woman or one underrepresented minority. So really NASDAQ is requesting on average 22% of the board to be made up of one person who is part of 51% of the US population or 32% of the US population. Doesn't seem that outrageous to me.

Except what authority does NASDAQ have?

It sounds like a great way to lose customers, especially foreign ones - for whom they made an exception that they can have 2 women instead of LGBTQ or "minoroty"

/like in Saudi where it's illegal or China where 90% of the country is Han


Their "authority" is their ability to determine listing requirements, within SEC rules, and their influence on the reporting of their listed companies.

They likely aren't worried about losing clients because (a) this doesn't otherwise affect companies' reasons for listing on NASDAQ, (b) board diversity remains voluntary and (c) Nasdaq is mostly just staying abreast of an existing trend in diversity as a corporate governance issue (see e.g. GS declining to IPO corps with all-white-dude boards). Even if exchanges were fungible, this sort of initiative will likely be seen across more exchanges in future, with more support from public companies.

It makes little sense IMO to worry that companies with exceptions will be the ones to pitch a fit. For that matter I'm not sure why you think a company in China might have a problem coming up with an Asian board member, or why you think board diversity would be "illegal" in KSA.
 
Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.