Recs

5

This SEC Directive May Boost Returns

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

There's a semisecret weapon that some companies have in their boardrooms and that other companies lack. You'll be surprised when I tell you what it is, because it has been linked to significantly higher corporate performance. It's women.

Unfortunately, many companies still don't take full advantage of board diversity. But the situation may be changing for the better soon, thanks to the Securities and Exchange Commission. It recently put into effect a new rule requiring companies to disclose how they considered gender diversity when nominating people for their boards. This is likely to lead to more companies considering women, and consequently more women on boards.

Why the SEC is right
There are plenty of reasons to push for such a change:

  • To many, it's clearly the right thing to do, to reflect half of the American workforce, to encourage female employees, and to include diverse viewpoints and perspectives.
  • It can also be cost-effective. If female employees feel shut out, they may seek greener pastures elsewhere. Hiring and training new workers is costly. Discriminating against women can also be costly, with lawsuits and all.
  • As an investor, my favorite reason is this: Companies can simply make more money by being more inclusive. A 2004 report from Catalyst divided 353 Fortune 500 companies into four groups according to their representation of women in leadership positions. The top group sported returns on equity that were 35% higher than the bottom group, while total return to shareholders was 34% higher.

The bad news ...
Unfortunately, corporate America has yet to broadly embrace such reasoning. Instead, most boards of directors have, at most, just one woman. While that smacks of tokenism, it's still better than nothing, and a (slow) step in the right direction.

For instance, DuPont (NYSE: DD  ) and PepsiCo (NYSE: PEP  ) not only have four women each on their boards, they have female CEOs as well. Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT  ) and Accenture (NYSE: ACN  ) have three female directors each.

Yet these companies are still the exception rather than the norm. A Corporate Library study came up with some mixed news:

  • While close to 90% of the S&P 500 companies have at least one woman on their board, 57% have two, and only 19% have more than two. (Given that many boards feature 12 or more people, even having three women sometimes means representation of 25% or less.) Tesoro (NYSE: TSO  ) and D.R. Horton (NYSE: DHI  ) are among those who still have no women on their boards, according to their corporate websites.
  • Only 14 companies in the S&P 500 have women serving as chairperson of their boards.
  • Among the smaller Russell 2000 companies, about half have no women at all on their boards.

Why do small companies have so much less female representation on their boards? One explanation suggested by the report from Catalyst is that "these companies do not receive as much scrutiny from those promoting gender diversity in the boardroom as the largest firms."

Of course, once the day comes when the typical glossy photo of a board of directors is full of female faces, that 35% performance advantage will have disappeared. But that would be OK, because all diverse companies may just be performing at higher levels by then.

What do you think of the issue of gender diversity in corporate leadership? Let us know how important you think it is or isn't -- leave a comment below.

It might not be surprising that women worry more about retirement, but it seems that the wealthy do, too -- and they should!

The Steve Jobs Betrayal
You may already know that in the final year of his life, Jobs revealed a stunning betrayal — and told his biographer, "I will spend my last dying breath... and every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank to right this wrong." What was it that made Jobs so irate — and why could it make a few in-the-know investors some major profits over the coming months and years?

Enter your email address below to find out what made Jobs so enraged!

Longtime Fool contributor Selena Maranjian owns shares of Wal-Mart and PepsiCo. Accenture and Wal-Mart are Motley Fool Inside Value picks. Motley Fool Options has recommended a diagonal call position on PepsiCo, which is a Motley Fool Income Investor pick. Try any of our investing newsletter services free for 30 days. The Motley Fool is Fools writing for Fools.


Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On April 22, 2010, at 8:56 PM, beadgrrl wrote:

    Companies have to disclose "how they consider gender diversity" when selecting their boards? How about not at all? I don't know where to start... First of all, what does "condsider gender diversity" even mean? Does it mean that every time a board member is nominated, an excuse must be made if the person is male? Or if there are several nominees at once, there has to be a token woman in there, regardless of qualifications?

    One concern I have is that boards will feel pressure to nominate people for reasons other than expertise. If there is a more-experienced male candidate and a less-experienced female candidate, does the company nominate the female candidate to make the SEC happy?

    Another is that this will backfire--some companies, to please the SEC, may put women on their boards who don't really belong there. And some people will decide that that means that women really are not as competent as men.

    And finally another concern is that there will be a suspicion that any woman on a corporate board was put there because she is a woman (because in some cases it could be true), and not because she was the most qualified candidate.

    Bottom line--why does the SEC have to do anything here? If companies with more diversity are more successful than those with less diversity, presumably free market forces will do their job and diverse companies will out-compete less-diverse companies.

    Of course, my thesis presumes that real gender discrimination is pursued and punished, since it is already illegal. Color me unconvinced that anything else has to be done here.

  • Report this Comment On April 23, 2010, at 1:18 AM, 123spot wrote:

    I wish that I couud have recommended this more than once.

  • Report this Comment On April 25, 2010, at 8:13 AM, funfundvierzig wrote:

    Returning to the old days of 1970's-style hardened feminism and forced quotas is equally insulting to qualified and talented women as well as to men.

    DuPont, for example, through its divisive and demoralising "Diversity" programmes and merit-free fast tracking based upon pigment or gender has poisoned the work climate for a large majority of males, particularly males of non-colour.

    ...funfun..

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 1161516, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 5/26/2012 12:27:24 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 3 hours ago Sponsored by:
DOW 12,454.83 -74.92 -0.60%
S&P 500 1,317.82 -2.86 -0.22%
NASD 2,837.53 -1.85 -0.07%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

5/25/2012 4:01 PM
PEP $68.64 Down -0.17 -0.25%
PepsiCo, Inc. CAPS Rating: *****
TSO $23.76 Up +0.56 +2.41%
Tesoro Corp CAPS Rating: ****
WMT $65.31 Up +0.24 +0.37%
Wal-Mart Stores CAPS Rating: ****
ACN $57.44 Down -0.55 -0.95%
Accenture Ltd. CAPS Rating: ****
DD $48.40 Down -0.26 -0.53%
E.I. du Pont de Ne… CAPS Rating: ****
DHI $17.01 Down -0.14 -0.82%
D.R. Horton, Inc. CAPS Rating: *

Advertisement