In his article (The competence asymmetry, Oct 27), YRK Reddy has raised some pertinent questions. Take the first, the difference in understanding the business model. In my experience, it is executives who have blinkered vision, not non-executive directors, since the former are more engrossed in routine operational matters to see the big picture. Moreover, knowledge bridging is becoming more relevant now. The second question concerns information asymmetry. Non-executive directors are not supposed to participate into day-to-day workings, but that doesnt mean that they dont know or understand business transactions, performance, results, risks, threats and so on. The third question, about selection criteria, demands more study. Reputation is not the only criteria to select independent directors. On the fourth question, about the baseline knowledge of corporate governance, the authors viewpoint is valid only if independent directors are from technical/scientific background and serving on boards of companies with differing domains. What about independent directors who are academicians on the boards of business schools Or bankers or finance specialists who serve on boards of banking or financial entities The problem lies not only in competence, but the corporate will to adopt corporate governance norms.
Anil Kumar Angrish, Ludhiana
Equity in play
The difference is that the US (Sebi strikes at last, Oct 27) allows huge divergences in wealth, letting hedge funds keep their strategies secret, but not in human rights.