Accountability and board functionality: National Australia Bank's experience

The National Australia Bank’s (NAB) experience of corporate governance has been contrary to current standards of good corporate governance, accountability and risk management. Over the last few years NAB’s misadventures have brought it under intensive media scrutiny with the HomeSide losses and the investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission in the USA for breaches of auditor independence. More recently the unauthorised trading by its foreign exchange dealers violated NABs risk management practices and the subsequent board crisis resulted in significant downgrading of the share price on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). This paper briefly reviews the international history of corporate accountability and its growth in Australia. The increasing shareholder and legislative pressure to improve sustainability, accountability and board functionality have driven these issues to the forefront of Governing Boards’ agendas worldwide. The board remains ultimately responsible for all actions of the company and this is highlighted by APRA’s recent release of the new governance standard APG510 for implementation by October 2006. The impact of NAB’s board dysfunction on its overall performance is compared with the other major banks in Australia. Cost efficiency ratios, share price and total shareholder return are used as measures of performance and profitability. It is clear, from NAB’s recent experience, as the worst performer of all the majors, with a 19.7% fall in net profit and a cost to income ratio of 57.4% in 2004, that the NAB board needs to improve its performance and accountability to meet a sustainable increase in profitability and higher return for investors.