...
首页> 外文期刊>Qualitative Research in Financial Markets >Bank top management teams, disclosure, learning, survival and failure-1990-2017
【24h】

Bank top management teams, disclosure, learning, survival and failure-1990-2017

机译:银行高层管理团队,披露,学习,生存和失败-1990-2017

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Purpose - Corporate financial communications concern public and private disclosure (Holland, 2005). This paper aims to explain how banks developed financial communications and how problems emerged in the global financial crisis. It explores policy responses. Design/methodology/approach - Bank cases reveal construction and destruction of the social, knowledge and economic world of financial communications over two periods. Findings - In the 1990s, learning about financial communications by a "dominant coalition" (Cyert, March, 1963) in bank top management was stimulated by gradual change. The management learnt how to accumulate social and cultural capital and developed "habitus" for disclosure (Bourdieu, 1986). From 2000, rapid change and secrecy factors accelerated bank internalisation of shareholder wealth maximising values, turning "habitus" in "market for information" (MF1) (Barker, 1998) into a "psychic prison" (Morgan,1986), creating riskier bank cultures (Schein, 2004) and constraining learning. Research limitations/implications - The paper introduces sociological concepts to banking research and financial disclosures to increase the understanding about financial information and bank culture and about how regulation can avoid crises. Limitations reflect the small number of banks and range of qualitative data. Practical implications - Regulators will have to make visible the change processes, new contexts and knowledge and connections to bank risk and performance through improved regulator action and bank public disclosure. Social Implications - "Masking" and rituals (Andon and Free, 2012) restricted bank disclosure and weakened governance and market pressures on banks. These factors mediated bank failure and survival in 2008, as "psychic prisons" "fell apart". Bank and MFI agents experienced a "cosmology episode" (Weick, 1988). Financial communications structures failed but were reconstructed by regulators. Originality/value - The paper shows how citizens require transparency and contested accountability to democratise finance capitalism. Otherwise, problems will recur.
机译:目的-公司财务通讯涉及公开和私人披露(荷兰,2005年)。本文旨在解释银行如何发展金融沟通以及在全球金融危机中如何出现问题。它探讨了政策对策。设计/方法/方法-银行案例揭示了两个时期金融通信的社会,知识和经济世界的建构和破坏。发现-在1990年代,逐步变革刺激了银行高层管理人员“主导联盟”(Cyert,1963年3月)对金融通讯的了解。管理层学会了如何积累社会和文化资本,并发展了“习惯”来进行披露(Bourdieu,1986)。从2000年开始,快速的变化和保密因素加速了银行内部化,使股东财富最大化,从而使价值最大化,从而将“信息市场”(MF1)(Barker,1998)中的“惯常”变成了“精神监狱”(Morgan, (1986年),创建风险更高的银行文化(Schein,2004年)并限制学习。研究局限性/含义-本文将社会学概念引入银行业研究和金融披露,以增进对金融信息和银行文化以及监管如何避免危机的理解。局限性反映出银行数量少和定性数据的范围。实际意义-监管机构必须通过改进监管机构的行动和银行公开披露,使变革过程,新环境和知识以及与银行风险和绩效的联系变得可见。社会影响-“掩盖”和仪式(Andon和Free,2012年)限制了银行的信息披露,削弱了银行的治理和市场压力。这些因素在2008年导致了“精神监狱”“分崩离析”,从而导致银行倒闭和生存。银行和MFI代理商经历了“宇宙事件”(Weick,1988年)。金融通信结构失败,但由监管机构进行了重组。原创性/价值-本文展示了公民如何要求透明度和竞争性的问责制来使金融资本主义民主化。否则,问题将再次发生。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号