I think that the need for directors to be more "financially literate" and "financially inquisitive" is self-evident. Undoubtedly, this will happen because directors and boards will "over-weight" financial literacy in order to manage their own perceptions of risk.

The issue is this, and it's serious: an eye for detail and a 'beyond-average' ('pathalogical'?) pursuit of financial robustness is a left-brain attribute. In time, boards will be dominated by a left-brain board member profile.

It's not that a left-brainer can't do the creative, innovative, out-of-the box type thinking that most organisations need, but the likelihoood is that the "average" left-brainer has considerable discomfort in focussing on long-term right-brain activities.

This spells long-term trouble for companies. What dies, is entrepreneurship (and the business intuition that underpins it) and the ability to handle comfortably, highly complex, ambiguous and unclear situations - characteristic of right-brainers who are much more comfortable in that space. Many HR issues, for example, are typically right-brain activities. Relationship management, crisis management and inter-personal facilitations are all right-brain skills (predominantly but not exclusively).

With the greatest of respect to the honourable judge, a board needs to have a range of skills - and they NEVER EVER all reside in the one person. If you have a number of similar people all sitting on the board - you are going to experience significant skill gaps.

I think the board needs a variety of skills and it also need a very robust Audit/Finance Committee. Maybe when the board doesn't have those skills in requisite numbers or in sufficient depth of skills, the board should be able to retain independent financial experts to ask the hard questions on their behalf.

The judgement does three profound things: It yells to all existing directors, "Beware, you are in extreme risk."

It also says to prospective directors, "Unless you are an 'expert' in financial analysis, don't even think of taking a board position in any type of company."

Finally it says, "Any director willing to take on the personal risk (i.e. those who have transferred all their assets to their spouse, children, trust or elsewhere) can ask any price and they will get it."

Furthermore, it says something fairly pointed about financial advisers and consultants: It has been overheard that, "You can't trust them anymore, you can't rely on them anymore, and hiring a top-line Chartered Firm won't anymore protect the directors or the company."

What's that going to do to the financial advisory business?

This ruling will have major impacts - some of which we won't see clearly for a couple of business seasons - but they are on the way. Stay tuned for the episode entitled, "Who the heck is prepared to be a director and where do I find one? Name your price!"