This really should not be regarded as a surprise. Appointing people using characteristics which are irrelevant to the job they are to do is unlikely to result in an improvement in performance. Of course, some otherwise unavailable changes might occur and some of these might be beneficial. But the competent management of a company should not involve seeking random appointments who obtain random benefits.
%% Exactly/LOL!!!!! And what about those that are not Hispanic/dont panic; some built an empire on white people wanting tan skin....................................................................NOT a stock tip ,but TAN has had a good UP run.
Apparently Nasdaq thinks the diversity hires on the boards won’t be smart enough to get away with insider trading and cites this as an advantage to their proposal. https://nypost.com/2020/12/05/why-nasdaqs-latest-diversity-plan-is-hypocritical/
%% Strange + funny/thier loop hole rule has already brought a midget loophole suggestion/LOL I always tended to do some 3 letter symbols/good for NYSE. Actually having a female or 2 on the board sounds fine if the company wants that. Its not self id nonsense, but i've noticed more female REALTY agents;like non self identified Ross Perot said in Stock Traders Almanac/ ''if there is anything more boring than a corporate board i never found it''
The current SEC, along partisan lines, rubber stamped the Nasdaq diversity-over-competence governance proposal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/nasdaqs-board-diversity-proposal-faces-sec-decision-11628242202 Under the proposal, Nasdaq-listed companies would need to meet certain minimum targetsfor the gender and ethnic diversity of their boards or explain in writing why they aren’t doing so. For most U.S. companies, the target would be to have at least one woman director, as well as a director who self-identifies as a racial minority or as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer. Companies would also be required to disclose diversity statistics about their boards.