The truth is that the Brexit, in and of itself, wasn't a good thing for the index. The economy in the UK was struggling before the vote, and the passing of Brexit signaled to some investors and analysts that further stimulus would be needed to quell the market.
When your values are clear to you, making decisions becomes easier" Roy E. Disney Roy E. Disney, the nephew of Walt himself, earned a reputation am...
The FTSE100 entered an official bear market on Wednesday (20% under its most recent high), and then proceeded to spend Wednesday, Thursday (and Friday so far) recovering. Oil is back above $30/barrel, the yield on 10 year British treasury bonds is unchanged, and Sterling is appreciating against both Dollar and Euro.
An article in the Guardian on bosses' pay by the director of the High Pay Centre, Deborah Hargreaves, presents the disparity between bosses' pay and t...
It seems that LGBT inclusion does not register as a priority to be communicated for most FTSE 100 companies. Perfunctory mentions of LGBT inclusion, unqualified by specific LGBT-focused inclusive activity, could suggest that many view LGBT diversity as merely a compliance issue, and are failing to pursue greater inclusion as a priority.
The rabbit out of the hat was the introduction of a national living wage, which will largely be paid for by the reduction in corporation tax, but the announcement of which led the FTSE 100 to pull back from its highs. All in all the budget can be seen as a very business orientated one which the markets have broadly welcomed.
With so many risks on the horizon, the euphoria of this result could fizzle out rather quickly.
With the manifestos out of the way and as we head towards the final stretch of the election campaigns culminating with the General Election, political deadlock remains in place. Neither of the two main parties have gained the upper hand with polls suggesting a very tight race to the finish line.
Now in all honesty, does anyone really feel that the fact more women will be refusing others maternity rights, helping the rich to evade tax, ignoring the fact that their child workers are being poisoned and flogging bad sports clothes made by sweatshop labourers, is going to get us any nearer to any sort of equality?
We need boards to change and thrive in a world which increasingly values diversity, different perspectives and a range of experiences. Boards need the best people and we should be beyond having to shout that this includes women.
The Chancellor has an opportunity to try and get the voting polls moving in his party's favour, but he won't want to be seen to be buying votes.
It's time for us to be as bold on tackling the staggering income inequality that exists in the UK, by introducing a maximum wage to end the disparity between the top and the bottom. The facts and figures tell it all. In 2013 the average FTSE 100 CEO received total remuneration worth 143 times that of the average employee in their firms.
Employers who do not pay at least the Living Wage, especially those who are turning a decent profit, need to wake up to the growing public outrage that so many among our workforce are expected to exist on poverty pay.
It's not just that there is a 'moral case' for greater diversity in business. Capitalising on women's potential makes economic sense. Having more women on corporate boards has been shown to increase both the share price and the return on equity. It doesn't surprise me that the 2013 list of the world's most valuable brands showed companies with a greater than average proportion of female board members outperforms those with an all-male board. So why are women undervalued across the business spectrum?
With the recent announcement by Lord Davies, Britain's former trade minister, that women now account for 21% of board members in the FTSE 100 firms and that this figure looks well placed to meet the target of 25% by 2015, now more than ever it is time for women in business to stand tall and know their value. The tide is turning.
The perennial paradox of international development is that countries with the most plentiful natural resources - whether oil, gas or diamonds - often tend to be relatively poor, undemocratic and economically stagnant...