There are risks investors expect.
Interest rates rise.
Currencies fluctuate.
Commodities turn.
Markets cycle.
And then there is governance risk — the one threat that arrives quietly, compounds invisibly, and detonates without warning.
The recent turmoil surrounding one of Jamaica’s largest listed companies has reignited an uncomfortable but necessary conversation across Corporate Jamaica: how did multiple layers of oversight fail for years?
External auditors.
U.S.-based auditors.
Bank audits.
Internal controls.
Audit committees.
Four years passed before irregularities surfaced publicly.
For investors — especially institutional ones — the deeper question is not just what went wrong operationally.
It is this:
How do you price governance failure?
And can you ever truly diversify away from it?
Governance Risk: The Undiversifiable Exposure
Portfolio theory teaches that diversification mitigates idiosyncratic risk. Spread your capital across sectors and issuers, and you reduce the damage from any single event.
But governance risk behaves differently.
If your largest position carries hidden accounting weaknesses, cultural blind spots, or ineffective oversight structures, no amount of additional small holdings will protect your capital.
Governance risk concentrates silently.
It accumulates behind strong earnings reports and dividend histories. It hides behind brand reputation and board credentials. And when exposed, it compresses valuations violently.
History is merciless on this point.
-
Enron collapsed not because energy markets turned, but because governance structures failed.
-
Wirecard imploded despite regulatory oversight and global audits.
-
Numerous regional corporate failures followed similar scripts: strong narratives, weak internal discipline.
In every case, earnings and growth masked systemic oversight breakdowns — until they didn’t.
The Oversight Illusion
Institutional investors often take comfort in structural safeguards:
-
Reputable audit firms
-
Independent directors
-
Audit committees chaired by seasoned executives
-
Cross-border regulatory scrutiny
But governance is not the existence of structure. It is the effectiveness of scrutiny.
The recent episode in Corporate Jamaica exposed uncomfortable realities:
-
Auditors did not comb through electronic communications during forensic reviews.
-
Losses were masked behind inflated assets and opaque subsidiary reporting.
-
Multiple audit layers failed to detect irregularities for years.
Governance failure is rarely a single missed red flag. It is usually a culture of incremental complacency.
The Communication Problem
Compounding the financial damage is what many investors describe as an over-reliance on obtuse corporate communication.
In moments of crisis, transparency is capital.
Yet increasingly, investors encounter:
-
Carefully worded disclosures
-
Delayed clarity
-
Narrative framing that emphasises “external conditions” over accountability
This strategy may buy time. It rarely restores trust.
Markets discount opacity. They punish ambiguity. They reprice uncertainty aggressively.
When disclosures are incomplete, investors assume the worst — and sell accordingly.
The Audit Committee Question
When senior board members acknowledge after the fact that internal audit resources must now be strengthened, investors are justified in asking:
Why now?
Installing a full-time internal auditor after material losses have already surfaced is corrective — but it is not preventative. As the old adage goes, it comes after the horse has bolted.
Strong governance is proactive, not reactive.
Boards must ask harder questions:
-
Were overseas subsidiaries subject to equal scrutiny?
-
Was management incentivised for revenue growth without adequate risk controls?
-
Were whistleblower mechanisms robust?
-
Was board independence substantive or ceremonial?
These questions are uncomfortable — but markets demand them.
The Institutional Investor Blind Spot
Caribbean institutional investors often emphasise:
-
Dividend track record
-
Market dominance
-
Earnings growth
-
Historical brand strength
But governance failure destroys capital faster than competitive erosion ever could.
A competitor might compress margins gradually.
Governance collapse erases equity overnight.
The brutal lesson is this: past performance is not proof of oversight quality.
The Governance Discount Is Real
When governance credibility deteriorates, companies suffer:
-
Share price compression
-
Higher borrowing costs
-
Tighter regulatory scrutiny
-
Reduced investor participation
Even if operational performance stabilises, the governance discount lingers.
Investors demand a risk premium.
It can take years to rebuild.
What Caribbean Boards Must Do Now
This is not simply about one company. It is about systemic maturity.
Corporate Jamaica must confront three priorities:
1. Radical Transparency
Clear timelines. Full forensic disclosures. Detailed subsidiary reporting. No ambiguity.
2. Audit Independence With Teeth
Audit committees must have real authority, forensic capability, and access to independent data channels — not just management summaries.
3. Governance Stress Testing
Boards should simulate governance breakdown scenarios the way banks stress-test liquidity crises.
Because governance failure is not hypothetical. It is recurring.
Businessuite Final Word: Governance Is Strategy
In emerging markets, governance quality is often the defining investment thesis.
It determines:
-
Access to capital
-
Valuation multiples
-
Institutional participation
-
Long-term resilience
Governance risk cannot be diversified away if it sits inside your largest position.
It cannot be ignored because earnings look strong.
And it cannot be repaired overnight once trust is broken.
The Caribbean’s capital markets are at an inflection point. If boards treat governance as compliance, markets will continue to apply a discount.
If they treat governance as strategy, transparency as discipline, and accountability as strength — investor confidence can return stronger than before.
But the lesson is unmistakable:
In investing, markets forgive bad quarters.
They rarely forgive bad governance.
When Diversification Fails: The Brutal Lessons from Mayberry Jamaican Equities
