Essays /

Northern Rock Plc Essay

Essay preview

Northern Rock Plc

Contents Page

1 Report 2
1.1 Audit Committee and Auditors 2
1.2 Experience: 4
2 Comparison 5
2.1 Chief Executive and Chairman 5
2.2 Audit Committee 5
2.3 Risk Management Committee 6
2.4 Remuneration & Nominations Committee 6
3 Chance of another failure 6
4 Conclusion: 8
5 References 8

Report
In this report I am going to highlight the weaknesses in the corporate governance code of Northern Rock that lead to its downfall. Audit Committee and Auditors
According to the UK Corporate governance code the board should set up formal and obvious arrangements bearing in mind how to apply the corporate reporting internal control, and risk management rules for keeping the right relationship with the company`s auditors. The board should make up an audit committee of at least three non executive directors in the case of smaller companies at least two NEDs. The chairman can be a member in smaller companies but cannot chair the committee unless he or she was considered independent on appointment as chairman. The board should make sure that at least one the member should have recent and relevant experience in the audit committee. The board’s responsibilities are to lay out all the terms in writing and monitor the financial statement of the company, to review the financial performance and reporting. It should also review internal financial control, risk management system if not in place separately to check the effectiveness and internal function of internal audit. The board should also be review and monitor the external auditors work their appointments and re appointments, their remunerations, and more importantly the non audit services should be checked very closely. In the case of Northern rock the board and the audit committee failed to implement the above mentioned guidelines. In July 2007 the chief executive published on the website that operationally Northern rock’s first half of 2007 was a good one. He mentioned that mortgage lending in particular was strong. If that was the case then how did Northern Rock end up being nationalised in just over 7 months? Was someone checking and verifying the statements of the chief executive. The external auditor’s complacency was another issue. In their report of 2006 they gave a clean bill of health. This was later investigated by the House of Lords economic affairs committee which found that the auditors h...

Read more

Keywords

/adnanqatinah1/lehman-brothers-case-study2. /business/2008/feb/27/executivesalaries.insurance. /our-work/publications/corporate-governance/uk- /sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1417953. 000 09 1 1.1 1.2 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2006 2007 2008 2009 2012 2013 3 325 397 3m 4 5 500 5th 6 7 75 8 8years abi access accord acquisit act actual admir advanc affair affect afraid agha aid almost also amend american anoth appli appoint approv area arrang attend attent audit auditor avail awar background balanc bank basel basi bear better big bill billion board bonus bring brother build busi came candid cannot care careless case cash caus cfo chair chairman chairmanship chanc check chief clean close code collaps combin committe compani compar comparison complac compli complianc concern conclus conduct consequ consid content context control corpor corporate-governance-code-september-2012.aspx could council count cover crisi cro current derek despit determin develop differ director disabl disastr dog downfal dr drive due duti econom educ effect either end enough ensur evalu even everi everyth execut experi experienc extern face fact factor fail failur far feb fenwick fiasco field financi first flaw follow formal found four fourth fulfil function fund futur g gambl gave general get gibson go good got govern guarante guidelin half happen health held henc high highlight histori hous howev i.e idea identifi implement import improv includ independ indic individu industri inexperi innov instead intern investig investor involv issu j job juli keep key kind knew knowledg known lack largest last late later lay lead learn learnt least led legal lehman lend lender less lesson let like look lord m made main make manag mani matter mayb meet member mention might million mind mis model monitor month mortgag much nationalis natwest navi ned negat neither new nichola nine nomin non non-execut none northern note number obvious old one oper organis outrag outstand page paid papers.ssrn.com papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1417953. particular partner peas per perform person place plc point poor presenc present previous prior problem produc profit promot proper prove provid publish pwc qatinah queen question radcliff rais rang rather re re-appoint realli reason recent recommend reduc refer regardless regul relat relationship relev remuner report represent requir rescu respons result retir return review reward ridley right risk riski rock role roman rosemari rule said salari say scratch sector seem seen senior separ serious servic set sharehold similar sir size skill smaller societi someon sometim sooner sort spot standard statement strategi strong studi subject succeed success successor suitabl support sure system take taken ten term theatr theori three timelin tomas took top tough treanor turn twice two uk understand unfortun unless upset us valu verifi version vital wanless want watch weak websit week well within work worri would write www.frc.org.uk www.frc.org.uk/our-work/publications/corporate-governance/uk- www.guardian.co.uk www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/feb/27/executivesalaries.insurance. www.slideshare.net www.slideshare.net/adnanqatinah1/lehman-brothers-case-study2. year