IR Monitor – 18 March 2026

In this week’s newsletter:

• Harvard Business Review on the skills board chairs need now
• Investor relations just got a little harder in China: Hong Kong plans to “name and shame” lawyers, auditors, accountants and industry consultants for sloppy IPO work
• 2026 proxy season preview: notes from Glass Lewis on North America
• Damned if you do, damned if you don’t: Matt Levine on ESG compliance
• His shareholder letter set a standard for investor relations: the Wall Street Journal on why Chief Executive Officers want to be like Warren Buffett
• And finally … never before has so much money been sought from investors in a single year. The Economist on the fight for the biggest prize in business

This week’s news

Harvard Business Review on the skills board chairs need now

The role of the board chair is becoming more demanding as companies face rising stakeholder expectations, technological disruption and geopolitical uncertainty. Research from the Leadership Institute at London Business School, highlighted in HBR, finds that traditional executive experience is now less critical than the ability to synthesise complex information, manage competing perspectives and guide boards through ambiguity. Effective chairs are increasingly focused on fostering open debate, leveraging diverse expertise and ensuring boards can navigate complex trade-offs among stakeholders before external pressures intervene. For investors, stronger chair leadership is emerging as an important governance signal. Effective chairs foster constructive debate, ensure specialist expertise informs decision-making and work closely with CEOs to manage growing board demands. As expectations around transparency and risk oversight rise, chair effectiveness is increasingly linked to board credibility & long-term success.

Naming & shaming in Hong Kong

The Financial Times has reported that Hong Kong’s stock exchange has proposed widening its “naming and shaming” regime to include lawyers, accountants, auditors and consultants linked to IPO applications rejected for serious disclosure deficiencies. The consultation follows mounting regulatory frustration with poor-quality filings, including incomplete responses and overly promotional language, amid a surge in listings, particularly from Chinese companies. Major global investment banks have already faced public scrutiny under the existing regime, signalling regulators’ willingness to hold advisers accountable. The move comes as part of a wider drive to enhance “Hong Kong’s position as a leading international financial centre”, as the city continues to rebound after a years-long lull in activity around the covid-19 pandemic.

2026 proxy season preview

In its 2026 proxy season preview, Glass Lewis highlights that Boards and investors are expected to scrutinise how companies oversee AI, particularly as formal guidance remains incomplete and best practice continues to develop. At the same time, a small but growing number of listed companies have explored changing their place of incorporation, often to access more favourable legal frameworks. Executive pay will also likely attract attention. Some companies have already adjusted bonus outcomes upward to offset the unexpected impact of tariffs on performance targets. Leadership transitions at major groups have also reinforced the importance of careful succession planning, especially when compensation packages include “make-whole” awards designed to replace forfeited incentives from previous roles. Lastly, ESG disclosures remain in flux. Political pressure and shifting regulation have prompted some US companies to scale back diversity reporting and sustainability metrics. Investors, meanwhile, continue to weigh litigation risk against expectations for transparency: a balance that may prove delicate as the proxy season unfolds.

Matt Levine on ESG compliance

The ESG debate continues in US courts, with competing legal theories now challenging both the inclusion and exclusion of ESG considerations in retirement plans. The theory goes: under US law, employers offering 401(k) schemes must act in the best interests of employees, selecting investment options designed to deliver appropriate risk-adjusted returns. Instead of maximising returns, ESG investing is about achieving social & environmental goals that “woke” employees at asset managers care about. Therefore, the investment is a breach of fiduciary obligations. A federal judge in Texas recently accepted a version of this argument in a case involving American Airlines, where plaintiffs challenged the company’s use of funds managed by BlackRock that incorporate ESG considerations. But, a newer lawsuit takes the opposite position. Filed in Seattle against Cushman & Wakefield, the claim argues that ignoring climate-related financial risk also violates fiduciary duties. Bloomberg’s Matt Levine highlights the growing legal paradox: depending on one’s view, ESG investing can be framed as either a breach of fiduciary duty or a necessary tool for managing investment risk.

CEOs want to be like Warren Buffett

Warren Buffett’s annual shareholder letters at Berkshire Hathaway have always attracted a readership far beyond the company’s investors, with the Wall Street Journal suggesting it has reshaped our expectations for CEO comms. Rather than producing a routine corporate report, Buffet infused commentary on company performance with personal anecdotes and humour. Jamie Dimon, himself the author of over 20 shareholder letters, said Buffet’s genius was translating complex financial ideas into plain English, adding that he himself has always tried to emulate that. Dimon is not alone in attempting to draw inspiration from Buffett. Tom Gayner, CEO of Markel Group, has also looked to Buffett’s letters, aiming to replicate the clarity with which he explained investment principles to a broad audience. Greg Abel, the new CEO at Berkshire, has already experienced the challenge of stepping into Buffett’s shoes -joking that writing his first shareholder letter quickly became one of the toughest assignments of his early tenure.

And finally … never before has so much money been sought from investors

To sustain the blitzkrieg of AI spending, and to have a chance of winning the race to dominate it, companies at the forefront of the industry need vast amounts of capital. OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX (now combined with Elon Musk’s model developer xAI) are therefore expected to pursue enormous stock market listings to fund the next phase of AI growth. These would be exceptionally large offerings: combined, the three listings could raise sums comparable to the total raised from all US IPOs over the past decade and, indeed, the most every sought from investors in a single year. Sam Altman’s OpenAI, which generated about $13bn in revenue last year, is reportedly targeting a valuation near $1tn. Anthropic’s Dario Amodei is seeking a figure over $500bn, with Elon Musk and SpaceX targeting roughly $1.5tn. Despite rapid revenue growth, none of the companies currently generate meaningful free cash flow. The Economist concludes that with vast spending required on computing infrastructure, public markets may ultimately provide the only practical way to keep funding the AI arms race.