Enterprise Risk Management An Article Critique Review Finance Essay

Risk direction has traditionally been occupied in eliminated downside exposure. Enterprise hazard direction ( ERM ) has emerged as a new paradigm for pull offing the portfolio of hazards that face organisations, and policy shapers continue to concentrate on mechanisms to better corporate administration and hazard direction, ( Beasley et al. , 2005 ) . The holistic attack alternatively of a silo-based position toward pull offing an organisation ‘s hazard is normally referred to as endeavor hazard direction ( ERM ) , ( Gordon et al. 2009 )

Hire a custom writer who has experience.
It's time for you to submit amazing papers!

order now

Beasley et al. , ( 2005 ) referred to ERM as “ a corporation can pull off hazards in one of two basically different ways: ( 1 ) one hazard at a clip and on a decentralised footing ; or ( 2 ) all hazards viewed together within a coordinated and strategic model. The latter attack is frequently called endeavor hazard direction or ERM for short ” . ERM can besides be a important beginning of competitory advantage for those who make a strong committedness to it as it focuses on upside hazards every bit good ( Stoch, 2005 ; Beasley et Al, 2005 ) .

Beasely, Clune, and Hermanson ( 2009 ) examined factors associated with the assorted phase of ERM execution in the 123 concluding samples of U.S. and international organisations, to demo why some organisations are reacting to altering hazard proi¬?les by utilizing ERM and others are non. If corporate administration mechanisms are non in topographic point to ei¬ˆectively manages the of all time altering portfolio of hazards confronting the endeavor, stakeholder value is at hazard, taking to signii¬?cant public policy concerns if left unaddressed.

This survey based on the Klei¬ˆner et Al. ( 2003 ) and Liebenberg and Hoyt ( 2003 ) findings, chose the influence of the hazard director, encouragement from the board of managers, house size and conformity with Toronto Stock Exchange ( TSE ) guidelines as the cardinal factors doing the acceptance of ERM, and Chief Risk Oi¬?cer assignments to analyze the determiners of ERM acceptance. Beasely et al. , ( 2009 ) surveyed members of the IIA ‘s Global Audit Information Network ( GAIN ) , who are chiefly main audit executives, and used ordinal logistic arrested development theoretical account to prove the information, which is clearly stated. Their findings showed that 50 per centum of the samples have implemented ERM, which are higher than Klei¬ˆner et Al. ( 2003 ) and Liebenberg findings in Canadian entities ( 31 % ) . Furthermore similar to Klei¬ˆner et Al. ( 2003 ) and Liebenberg findings, Beasely et al. , ( 2009 ) found that the phase of ERM execution in entities is positively related to those cardinal mentioned factors. One tierce of the sample entities were in banking, instruction and insurance industries, so Beasely et al. , ( 2009 ) tested the industry differences utilizing dummy variables for public-service corporation, authorities and health care and found that none of the variables were important, and the other factors were unaffected. Findingss were contradicted with Kleffner et Al. ( 2003 ) in which they found that industry is a important factor in ERM execution.

However, the study response rate of their survey was 10.3 % , similar surveies in this field utilizing the same research method have had a response rate of 30 % ( Scarough et al. , 1998 ; Raghunandan et al. , 2001 ) . Furthermore, they used study informations obtained from head audit executives, who do n’t hold accurate i¬?rst manus cognition about ERM deployments within their organisations, therefore consequences are limited. Due to the limited informations, they could non see interactions among the independent variables in their theoretical account. Finally, there may be of import organisational features or dimensions of ERM deployments that were non rei¬‚ected in this survey.

Gordon, Loeb, and Tseng ( 2009 ) continued look intoing on hazard from more holistic position, ( ERM ) . This survey worked on how the ERM and steadfast public presentation are related. The samples were derived from the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission ‘s EDGAR database. The survey began with a hunt for companies that indicated they were using the ERM construct in their 10Ks and/or 10Qs covering their i¬?scal twelvemonth 2005. The concluding samples were 112 houses. Although there is no theoretical model or theoretical account that can foretell the cardinal factors ini¬‚uencing the relation between a i¬?rm ‘s ERM and its public presentation, but based on the relevant literature, this survey used a set of i¬?ve factors: Environmental uncertainness ( EU ) , industry competition ( CI ) , i¬?rm size ( FS ) , i¬?rm complexness ( FC ) , and board of managers ‘ monitoring ( MBD ) .

Gordon et Al. ( 2009 ) found that relationship between ERM and steadfast public presentation is contingent upon the appropriate lucifer between ERM and the contextual variables environing i¬?rms. This survey reached to the same consequence as Beasley et Al. ( 2005 ) reached, in footings of two common factors, house size and the board of managers which have a positive relationship with ERM. Gordon et al. , ( 2009 ) are the first 1s who were able to make to an ERM index which can be sensible to mensurate the effectivity of the house:

Prob ( AERMi=1 ) = I?0 + I?1Big4i + I?2FSi + I?3ZScorei + I?4DE Ratioi + I?5 Investment Opportunityi + I?6 Foreign Transaction + Iµi

AERM is an index variable specifying whether house I adopted ERM ( AERM=1 ) or did non prosecute in ERM ( AER=0 ) at any point during 2005. Large 4 is a dummy variable and are set to one if house ‘s hearer is from large four Certified public accountant houses, or set to zero otherwise. FS stands for house size and is measured as the logarithm of house I ‘s entire assets ( Compustat # 6 ) . ZScore is the Z-score developed following Altman ( 1968 ) . DE Ratio divides entire debt ( Compustat # 9 + Compustat # 34 ) by shareholder ‘s equity ( Compustat # 216 ) . Investment Opportunity is the amount of capital outgo ( Compustat # 128 ) and R & A ; D expenditures ( Compustat # 46 ) scaled by house ‘s entire assets. Foreign Transaction is a dummy variable, and takes on a value of one if house has zero foreign currency accommodation ( Compustat # 150 ) in 2005, and zero otherwise.

The survey merely covers informations from 2005 ; therefore the i¬?ndings are non generalized to other clip periods. A 2nd restriction of this survey relates to that fact that they use one twelvemonth extra stock market returns to mensurate i¬?rm public presentation, other steps of public presentation such as Tobin ‘s Q or a i¬?ve twelvemonth surplus returns could besides be considered. A 3rd restriction to this survey is that a theoretical theoretical account depicting which eventuality variables should be considered in surveies like this 1 does non be. Therefore, they choosing eventuality variables based on the manner they interpret the bing literatures, of class others could construe the bing literature otherwise than Gordon et Al. ( 2009 ) did and therefore argue for sing different variables.

One statement in favour of hazard direction results is that stable net incomes cut down the likeliness of i¬?nancial hurt and do favourably priced capital accessible for good concern propositions. Another principle suggests that stakeholder relationships are at hazard if corporate endurance is unsure, so a deficiency of hazard direction will enforce incremental costs on counter party minutess ( Andersen, 2008 ) . Andersen ( 2008 ) followed the thought of entire hazard direction as the ability to react to market factors beyond direction control so as to stabilise corporate net incomes. This survey was gathered informations form 1,386 companies with i¬?nancial information available from Compustat: big US-based i¬?rms runing across four figure SIC codification industries including Fortune 500 companies, Stern-Stewart Performance Top 1,000 companies and the 1,000 largest companies in Compustat based on market capitalisation.

To mensurate the corporate public presentation, Anderson ( 2008 ) considered return on assets, return on investing, retained net incomes and long-run debt as dependent variables ( which are common in other organisational surveies ) , and besides used two control variables in the analyses, the house size which represents anterior public presentation and measured as the natural logarithm of entire assets to rectify for positive skew in the information, and the fiscal purchase that was measured as long-run debt divided by entire equity at twelvemonth terminal was considered a general hazard direction tool that may impact hazard direction effectivity and public presentation.

As a altering market environment is ini¬‚uenced by assorted economic, operational and strategic hazard factors impacting the ability to sell merchandises and services, in this survey the variableness in i¬?rm gross revenues over clip used as an index of the implied market hazards, and to demo the relationships between the market value and the plus value, market to book ratio was calculated ( the market value of outstanding stock divided by the book value of the i¬?rm ‘s reported equity place ) .

Findingss from statistics and correlativity coefficients showed that the entire hazard direction steps, ( organisational size and i¬?nancial purchase ) are signii¬?cantly positively correlated with the corporate public presentation steps, particularly among houses puting in invention and those operating in knowledge-intensive industries, similar to Beasely et al. , ( 2005 ) which found the positive relationship between house size and ERM. However they are negatively correlated with the market to book ratio.

Anderson ( 2008 ) found invention, cognition merchandises and the market to book ratio as placeholders of i¬?rm specii¬?c investing conditions are positively correlated. Hence, the reported consequences are consistent with the proposition that effectual hazard direction capablenesss rei¬‚ected in the ability to cut down the impact of exogenic hazard factors and diminish the variableness in corporate net incomes have signii¬?cant positive public presentation effects. While the survey indicates that effectual hazard direction is related to invention and human-based cognition, it does non detail the implicit in sum hazard direction procedures.

Ekanayake and Subramaniam ( 2008 ) provided empirical grounds on the nature and extent of hazards faced by Small to Medium-Sized Knowledge Intensive Firms ( SMKIFs ) , their attitudes towards hazards, and the hazard direction attacks adopted by them. They besides assessed the effects of selected organisational factors such as industry, entity size and hazard administration leading on the committedness by SMKIFs to follow an ( ERM ) attack, ( In Australia, many of the cognition intensive houses tend to be little or moderate-sized endeavors ) . The importance of the types of hazard faced by SMKIFs was assessed based on a 16 point graduated table. While most of the points were developed from available literature on the cognition intensive industry, some were adapted from Collier et Al. ( 2007 ) . Data was obtained through a questionnaire study of SMKIFs in the province of Victoria, Australia which were either in the bio-technology ( bio-tech ) or the accounting and legal ( concern services ) industry sectors. The database used in this survey is AusBiotech, which is advised by industry experts as the best beginning of information on bio-tech houses in Australia.

The methodological analysis used in this survey is an version of Beasley et Al. ‘s ( 2005 ) measuring graduated table. Based on a sum of 104 ( 13 % ) functional responses from senior directors in charge of hazard direction, some of the cardinal findings include the designation of the top three hazards faced by SMKIFs being possible harm to house ‘s repute, inability to enroll and retain workers who have appropriate accomplishments and expertness, and addition in costs. Interestingly, while 51 % of the respondents described their houses as being willing to or lament to take hazards, 38 % saw their houses as being either preferring non to take hazards or garbage to take hazards, with the balance of the houses ( 11 % ) viewed as impersonal. The information besides indicated that more than half of the respondent houses ( 54 % ) had established either a complete or a partial ERM system. Further, informations analysis based on a binary logistic theoretical account identified industry sector ( bio-tech houses ) , steadfast size and managers ‘ support of hazard direction as cardinal forecasters of ERM execution in SMKIFs. Contrary to what was expected, organisational hazard stance did non foretell the degree of the ERM execution. Each participant was asked to rate the importance of each type of hazard to his/her house ‘s endurance utilizing a 7-point Likerttype graduated table with 1 = non at all to 7 = a great trade, on 16 types of hazards. These include ‘inability recruit and retain workers ‘ , ‘inability protect rational belongings rights ‘ , ‘takeover hazards ‘ , and ‘damage to repute ‘ .


Hence, farther research can be done with more elaborate instance analyses sing interactions among the independent variables in the theoretical accounts, place how different organisational procedures may back up effectual hazard direction capablenesss beyond the range of derived functions, insurance, direction controls, using some theories related to put on the line direction to back up the findings. Finally, there may be other of import organisational features or dimensions of ERM deployments that were non rei¬‚ected in mentioned survey. This research could besides be enhanced by garnering larger sample size.


I'm Heather

Would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out