Connect with us

Business

When Washington steps back: what deregulation means for corporate leaders

Published

on



From boardrooms to factory floors, U.S. companies are entering a new era where federal guardrails may disappear. The laws may be rolling back, but the risk: legal, financial, and reputational, are multiplying. Getting ahead of this challenge is one of the few things boards and leadership teams can control in a business world defined by uncertainty.

I. The Disappearing Roadmap

Imagine you’re at a dinner with fellow executives. Someone asks, “What’s happening in your world right now?” A few years ago, the answer might have been inflation, supply chains, or talent retention. Today, another response is gaining traction: the rules of the game are disappearing.

For decades, federal regulation offered companies both a roadmap and a shield. Compliance provided legal protection, investor confidence, and a baseline for competitive fairness. That framework is now shifting across multiple sectors: finance, energy, environmental management, and consumer safety. Boards must navigate a landscape where federal rules no longer provide clear benchmarks, yet liability, reputation, and competitive pressures remain.

In a world dominated by uncertainty, how companies prepare for deregulation is one of the few levers of control available to leadership. It is a moment to exercise foresight, to define company standards proactively, and to maintain credibility with employees, customers, and investors alike.

II. How We Got Here

U.S. federal regulation has often been written in response to crisis. Before national rules, businesses navigated a patchwork of state laws that were inefficient, inconsistent, and sometimes dangerous. Unsafe food practices revealed in The Jungle (1906) led to the Pure Food and Drug Act and Meat Inspection Act. Mine explosions and factory fires spurred the creation of OSHA, setting basic safety standards. The 1929 stock market crash exposed flaws in securities trading, prompting the Securities Acts and the SEC to protect investors and enforce disclosure. Environmental disasters like the Cuyahoga River fires and smog crises produced the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Corporate fraud scandals, from Enron to WorldCom, led to the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley, while the 2008 financial crisis gave rise to Dodd-Frank and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Time and again, regulation has followed upheaval, creating national standards to safeguard workers, consumers, investors, and the environment.

These milestones reveal a consistent pattern: crises prompted federal intervention, which reduced uncertainty, enabled the growth of national markets, and fostered long-term economic expansion. Regulation, while costly in the short term, created the infrastructure for scalable, sustainable businesses.

Fast forward to 2025: the federal government has enacted a sweeping wave of deregulation across environmental, labor, healthcare, and financial sectors, applying a “10-for-1” rule that eliminated ten existing regulations for every new one introduced. The scale of this rollback -environmental standards, financial oversight, and workplace protections – is historically significant, leaving boards and executives to navigate a far less predictable landscape.

III. Implications & Action

Deregulation shifts risk from public enforcement to corporate governance. The absence of federal backstops creates legal uncertainty: compliance with rescinded rules no longer provides safe harbor, and boards may face heightened liability for oversight failures. Directors and executives must anticipate potential litigation, gaps in D&O insurance coverage, and reputational exposure, particularly in areas historically protected by federal standards.

Competitive tensions are emerging. Firms that maintain rigorous safety and governance standards may incur higher costs, while others exploit regulatory gaps to cut expenses. This divergence can affect reputational capital, investor trust, and market positioning. Global considerations amplify the challenge: companies operating internationally must meet foreign regulatory standards regardless of U.S. deregulation, while domestic competitors may face different state requirements.

Boards can take proactive steps. Risk-mapping across business units, reassessing compliance as a governance responsibility, and exploring voluntary certifications or alliances establish new baselines for trust and safety. Regulatory sandboxes and safe harbors can be leveraged where applicable. Companies operating in multiple states may voluntarily adhere to the highest standard to maintain consistency, creating predictability for operations and signaling reliability to stakeholders.

Strategically, firms that lead on governance and product safety can convert compliance into a market advantage. Transparent reporting, rigorous internal controls, and alignment between executive incentives and long-term risk management are essential leadership tools. Companies that treat safety, ethics, and governance as strategic differentiators can maintain investor confidence, attract customers, and strengthen workforce engagement.

Deregulation also forces boards to rethink how they exercise oversight. Historical reliance on federal regulation as a shield must give way to proactive governance, scenario planning, and alignment of culture with risk management. In short, boards that act decisively can exert control over one of the few variables still within their influence: how their organization navigates an increasingly deregulated environment. 

IV. Actionable Conclusion

The retreat of federal regulations does not eliminate risk, it redistributes it. Boards and executives who treat deregulation as merely a cost-cutting opportunity may find themselves exposed to litigation, investor skepticism, or reputational harm. Those who approach it strategically can define industry standards, creating competitive advantage and long-term resilience.

Action steps for leadership teams include:

1.    Map exposure: Identify where regulatory rollback directly affects operations, compliance, and liability.

2.    Reassess governance: Ensure oversight structures, reporting lines, and monitoring processes reflect current and anticipated risks.

3.    Set voluntary standards: Adopt certifications, alliances, or internal protocols that exceed minimum legal requirements.

4.    Communicate trust: Clearly convey the company’s commitment to safety, ethics, and long-term stability to investors, employees, and customers.

5.    Integrate into strategy: Treat regulatory navigation as a core component of risk management, competitive positioning, and capital allocation.

In an era of uncertainty, proactive boards gain clarity and control, shaping outcomes rather than reacting to them. Deregulation may remove government guardrails, but leadership, foresight, and disciplined execution remain levers executives can command.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Procurement execs often don’t understand the value of good design, experts say

Published

on



Behind every intricately designed hotel or restaurant is a symbiotic collaboration between designer and maker.

But in reality, firms want to build more with less—and even though visions are created by designers, they don’t always get to see them to fruition. Instead, intermediaries may be placed in charge of procurements and overseeing the financial costs of executing designs.

“The process is not often as linear as we [designers] would like it to be, and at times we even get slightly cut out, and something comes out on the other side that wasn’t really what we were expecting,” said Tina Norden, a partner and principal at design firm Conran and Partners, at the Fortune Brainstorm Design forum in Macau on Dec. 2.

“To have a better quality product, communication is very much needed,” added Daisuke Hironaka, the CEO of Stellar Works, a furniture company based in Shanghai. 

Yet those tasked with procurement are often “money people” who may not value good design—instead forsaking it to cut costs. More education on the business value of quality design is needed, Norden argued.

When one builds something, she said, there are both capital investment and a lifecycle cost. “If you’re spending a bit more money on good quality furniture, flooring, whatever it might be, arguably, it should last a lot longer, and so it’s much better value.”

Investing in well-designed products is also better for the environment, Norden added, as they don’t have to be replaced as quickly.

Attempts to cut costs may also backfire in the long run, said Hironaka, as business owners may have to foot higher maintenance bills if products are of poor design and make.

AI in interior and furniture design

Though designers have largely been slow adopters of AI, some luminaries like Daisuke are attempting to integrate it into their team’s workflow.

AI can help accelerate the process of designing bespoke furniture, Daisuke explained, especially for large-scale projects like hotels. 

A team may take a month to 45 days to create drawings for 200 pieces of custom-made furniture, the designer said, but AI can speed up this process. “We designed a lot in the past, and if AI can use these archives, study [them] and help to do the engineering, that makes it more helpful for designers.” 

Yet designers can rest easy as AI won’t ever be able to replace the human touch they bring, Norden said. 

“There is something about the human touch, and about understanding how we like to use our spaces, how we enjoy space, how we perceive spaces, that will always be there—but AI should be something that can assist us [in] getting to that point quicker.”

She added that creatives can instead view AI as a tool for tasks that are time-consuming but “don’t need ultimate creativity,” like researching and three-dimensionalizing designs.

“As designers, we like to procrastinate and think about things for a very long time to get them just right, [but] we can get some help in doing things faster.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Binance has been proudly nomadic for years. A new announcement suggests it’s chosen an HQ

Published

on



For years, Binance has dodged questions about where it plans to establish a corporate headquarters. On Monday, the world’s largest crypto exchange made an announcement that indicates it has chosen a location: Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.

In its announcement, Binance reported that it has secured three global financial licenses within Abu Dhabi Global Market, a special economic zone inside the Emirati city. The licenses regulate three different prongs of the exchange’s business: its exchange, clearinghouse, and broker dealer services. The three regulated entities are named Nest Exchange Limited, Nest Clearing and Custody Limited, and Nest Trading Limited, respectively.

Richard Teng, the co-CEO of Binance, declined to say whether Abu Dhabi is now Binance’s global headquarters. “But for all intents and purposes, if you look at the regulatory sphere, I think the global regulators are more concerned of where we are regulated on a global basis,” he said, adding that Abu Dhabi Global Market is where his crypto exchange’s “global platform” will be governed.

A company spokesperson declined to add more to Teng’s comments, but did not deny Fortune’s assertion that Binance appears to have chosen Abu Dhabai as its headquarters.

Corporate governance

The Abu Dhabi announcement suggests that Binance, which has for years taken pride in branding itself as a company with no fixed location, is bowing to the practical considerations that go with being a major financial firm—and the corporate governance obligations that entails.

When Changpeng Zhao, the cofounder and former CEO of Binance, launched the company in 2017, he initially established the exchange in Hong Kong. But, weeks after he registered Binance in the city, China banned cryptocurrency trading, and Zhao moved his nascent trading platform. Binance has since been itinerant. “Wherever I sit is going to be the Binance office,” Zhao said in 2020.

The location of a company’s headquarters impacts its tax obligations and what regulations it needs to follow. In 2023, after Binance reached a landmark $4.3 billion settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice, Zhao stepped down as CEO and pleaded guilty to failing to implement an effective anti-money laundering program.

Teng took over and promised to implement the corporate structures—like a board of directors—that are the norm for companies of Binance’s size. Teng, who now shares the CEO role with the newly appointed Yi He, oversaw the appointment of Binance’s first board in April 2024. And he’s repeatedly telegraphed that his crypto exchange is focused on regulatory compliance.

Binance already has a strong footprint in the Emirates. It has a crypto license in Dubai, received a $2 billion investment from an Emirati venture fund in March, and, that same month, said it employed 1,000 employees in the country. 



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Leaders in Congress outperform rank-and-file lawmakers on stock trades by up to 47% a year

Published

on



Stocks held by members of Congress have been beating the S&P 500 lately, but there’s a subset of lawmakers who crush their peers: leadership.

According to a recent working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, congressional leaders outperform back benchers by up to 47% a year.

Shang-Jin Wei from Columbia University and Columbia Business School along with Yifan Zhou from Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University looked at lawmakers who ascended to leadership posts, such as Speaker of the House as well as House and Senate floor leaders, whips, and conference/caucus chairs.

Between 1995 and 2021, there were 20 such leaders who made stock trades before and after rising to their posts. Wei and Zhou observed that lawmakers underperformed benchmarks before becoming leaders, then everything suddenly changed.

“Importantly, whilst we observe a huge improvement in leaders’ trading performance as they ascend to leadership roles, the matched ‘regular’ members’ stock trading performance does not improve much,” they wrote.

Leadership’s stock market edge stems in part from their ability to set the regulatory or legislation agenda, such as deciding if and when a particular bill will be put to a vote. Setting the agenda also gives leaders advanced knowledge of when certain actions will take place.

In fact, Wei and Zhou found that leaders demonstrate much better returns on stock trades that are made when their party controls their chamber.

In addition, being a leader also increases access to non-public information. The researchers said that while companies are reluctant to share such insider knowledge, they may prioritize revealing it to leaders over rank-and-file lawmakers.

Leaders earn higher returns on companies that contribute to their campaigns or are headquartered in their states, which Wei and Zhou said could be attributable to “privileged access to firm-specific information.”

The upper echelon also influences how other members of Congress vote, and the paper found that a leader’s party is much more likely to vote for bills that help firms whose stocks the leader held, or vote against bills that harmed them. And stocks owned by leadership tend to see increases in federal contract awards, especially sole-source contracts, over the following one to two years.

“These results suggest that congressional leaders may not only trade on privileged knowledge, but also shape policy outcomes to enrich themselves,” Wei and Zhou wrote.

Stock trades by congressional leaders are even predictive, forecasting higher occurrences of positive or negative corporate news over the following year, they added. In particular, stock sales predict the number of hearings and regulatory actions over the coming year, though purchases don’t.

Investors have long suspected that Washington has a special advantage on Wall Street. That’s given rise to more ETFs with political themes, including funds that track portfolios belonging to Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

And Paul Pelosi, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, even has a cult following among some investors who mimic his stock moves.

Congress has tried to crack down on members’ stock holdings. The STOCK Act of 2012 requires more timely disclosures, but some lawmakers want to ban trading completely.

A bipartisan group of House members is pushing legislation that would prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, dependent children, and trustees from trading individual stocks, commodities, or futures.

And this past week, a discharge petition was put forth that would force a vote in the House if it gets enough signatures.

“If leadership wants to put forward a bill that would actually do that and end the corruption, we’re all for it,” said Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., on social media on Tuesday. “But we’re tired of the partisan games. This is the most bipartisan bipartisan thing in U.S. history, and it’s time that the House of Representatives listens to the American people.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.