Essay PreviewMore ↓
In the Introduction of the article of the author Lynn A. Stout pointed out the two arguments in regard to shareholder primacy that were made by Adolph A. Berle and Merrick Dodd.
Adolph A. Berle argued for “Shareholder Primacy” in that he believed that the corporation exists only to make money for its shareholders.
Merrick Dodd argued against it his view was “the business corporation as an economic institution which has a social service as well as a profit making function”.
Although both men have argued over this the result of what the interest of the business lie in still remains unsolved.
No one can be sure if the firm exists to increase shareholders wealth or to serve the interests of the stakeholders of the business. Yet there has been no more research has been done after the debate to solve the argument.
Therefore from this I can interpret that the argument is whether the interest in the business lies in the interest of the shareholders or stakeholders.
So then the author Lynn A. Stout goes on to list the arguments for and against these theories –
1. The Shareholder Ownership Argument for Shareholder Primacy.
In this argument the Author considers the most common argument which is that the Business “belongs” to its shareholders in that its main purpose to increase shareholder wealth. While shareholders do not own all of the business the do own a stake in it so for this their rights as “the owners” are quite limited this is where the Agency theory takes effect while shareholders are seen as the owners they do not manage the day to day running of the business that managers do. Shareholders do not receive a salary or wage like managers but rather receive a dividend which only can be received if the directors declare one. So my interpretation is that shareholders no not have any right of control over the firm’s assets. Then Lynn A. Stout goes on to talk about Fischer Black and Myron Scholes famous paper which looks at the options theory from this I can presume that its theory is that is the company is in debt the debtholders have the right to the companies cash where as the shareholders don’t.
So the theory behind the whole argument is that while the shareholders are involved in the Business they simply do not own the business.
How to Cite this Page
"Shareholder Primacy." 123HelpMe.com. 10 Dec 2019
Need Writing Help?
Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.Check your paper »
- Maximisation of shareholders’ wealth is globally accepted as main goal of a firm. Shareholder wealth maximization is seen beneficial not only from the stockholders ' perspective, but also as for the society. Most corporations are owned by stockholders and within the construct of these companies are managers who are positioned with the one of the principal idea of maximizing shareholder wealth and increasing the growth of the intrinsic share value. Generally Shareholders are not involved in daily operations so they empower the managers to make decisions that are in best interest of the firm and consistent with the firm’s goal of wealth maximisation.... [tags: Stock market, Stock, Shareholder, Share]
710 words (2 pages)
- 2) The shareholder theory states that the only goal of a business is to maximize profits and increase the shareholder value under the bounds of the law. The only people of consequence in this theory are the ones who have monetary value tied to the company through investments. This obligation has come about due to the immense pressure that shareholders have over a company. Therefore, majority shareholders will be the ones to make decisions that would influence who ever runs the company. The CEO will be attempting to make the shareholders happy, and acquiring money for the shareholders is a great way to do it.... [tags: Ethics, Value, Intrinsic value, Business ethics]
1244 words (3.6 pages)
- Today, ethics in business should be a primacy not an alternative. For that reason, consumers expect key car manufacturers to be both ethically and socially responsible, but unfortunately, some businesses put the comforts of their stockholders above all the other stakeholders. Headline news just recently reported that German owned Volkswagen (VW) Company, the world’s most prevalent car manufacturer, is currently facing individual and class action lawsuits globally due to the “defeat” device. Thus, VW reluctantly reported that 11 million of their vehicles globally have this device, which can detect when tested and therefore releases fewer emissions than it would when consumers drive them in a... [tags: Ethics, Business ethics, Applied ethics]
740 words (2.1 pages)
Case Study And Benefits Of Henley Manufacturing Of Announcing Its Sales And Earnings Goals At The Shareholders Meeting
- Case 1-2 Henley Manufacturing Inc. on page 49 of your text. Required A: What are the potential costs and benefits to Henley Manufacturing of announcing its sales and earnings goals at the shareholders meeting. Potential costs There are various underlying factors that are to be considered if Hanley Manufacturing is contemplating announcing the company’s earnings and sale goals during their upcoming meeting with shareholders. As indicated by the financial manager, disclosing sales and earnings goals is not a normal practice for Hanley Manufacturing and also indicated that only information that is requested by shareholders are discussed.... [tags: Finance, Revenue, Employee benefit, Shareholder]
708 words (2 pages)
- First impressions are the last impressions, as the saying goes forming a good first impression is vital to a good begging of any relationship, whether it is professional or personal. In his paper S.E. Asch (1946) states that “ we look at a person and immediately a certain impression of his character forms itself in us”(p. 258) this is the perfect way to describe what happens when we met someone for the first time. This is a phenomenon known as primacy effect is universal, as we all have judged other based on the first impression that they make on us.... [tags: GPA, soccer, first impressions]
2824 words (8.1 pages)
- Profit Maximization and Maximization of Shareholder Equity Research and discuss the topics of profit maximization and maximization of shareholder equity. 1. Compare and Contrast the goals of profit maximization and maximization of shareholder equity. When discussing profit maximization and maximization of shareholder equity (i.e. wealth) we must take into account that shareholder equity is responsible for all of the difficulties of the environment. To whereas, profit maximization does not, in other words the profit maximization deals with revenues, it is a measure of business operations.... [tags: Investment, Decision making, Management, Risk]
757 words (2.2 pages)
- Zhang Linwen 585557518 According to Kilkolly-Proffit (2015), Rajesh is a non-executive member of Bio-Plastics Inc. states that the company should continue cooperating with Lanos to earn more profit in the future. Both stakeholder and shareholder theories are related to his opinion and may affect the performance of the company. This essay will discuss the stakeholder and shareholder theories in the relationship with Rajesh 's idea respectively. Also, this article will analyze why I agree with Rajesh 's position to consider sustainability.... [tags: Sustainability, Sustainable development]
952 words (2.7 pages)
- Summary: Serial position effects have been reviewed extensively in cognitive psychology research (Cowan et al, 2002). When people are shown a list of items, they are more liable to recollect the items presented either at the commencement of the list or at the cessation. This occurrence was termed the primacy and recency effects (Stewart et al., 2004). Serial position effects can alter a consumer’s recollection which in turn can alter their behavior when purchasing items. Although this is true, past research has not investigated or used primacy and recency effects for marketing purposes.... [tags: cognitive psychology research]
1600 words (4.6 pages)
- THE PRIMACY OF CULTURE Democracy’s Future – Francis Fukuyama argues that for any new ideology or political trend to emerge that rival those of liberal democracy, it requires the precursor of developments at the level of civic society and culture. Accordingly, he sees the only civic society, and culture that seems poised to do so is Asia. Fukuyama bases his judgment on the claim that for the consolidation of democracy, there must exist four levels of change: On the first level is Ideology, followed by Institutions, then Civil Society, and finally, Culture.... [tags: essays research papers]
1439 words (4.1 pages)
- Wealth Maximization Concepts Worksheet Maximizing Shareholder Wealth- MBA/540r4 Bernard Lester is CEO and founder of Lester Electronics the public Lester Electronics, Inc. which earns $500 million annually. In 1984, Bernard took his company public, and it is now traded on the NASDAQ market and rated Baa by a nationally recognized rating agency. A corporation is owned by shareholders who share the privilege of limited liability and whose liability exposure is usually no greater than their initial investment.... [tags: Business Finance]
1458 words (4.2 pages)
2. The Residual Claimants Argument for Shareholder Primacy.
The second Argument the Author considers the fact that while the shareholders do not own the business they do have a stake in it meaning they have a claim to it. It then looks in to the theory behind this argument in the work of Frank Easterbrook and Daniel Fischel who conclude that the business is a contract between its Shareholders and Stakeholders, which again suggests Agency theory to me that while the Shareholders invest their money in the business the Managers run it to provide a service or good that its customers buy which inturn makes the profit for its shareholders. Therefore one can conclude that Stakeholders are entitled to fixed payments e.g. Wages and Salaries while Shareholders are entitled to receive dividends after the fixed payments have been made.
The Argument points out that Shareholders are infact the “Residual Claimants” as they took the risk to invest their capital in the business in return for a dividend. So therefore the theory that the interest in the business is to increase shareholder wealth is some what correct but the theory that they own the business and are entitled to everything it earns is incorrect.
Then it is pointed out that the only time the Shareholders are the Residual Claimants is when the business is actually in bankruptcy and that Shareholders will only received a dividend when two conditions are met theses are –
• The business must be doing well enough financially to permit the directors to declare a dividend.
• The directors must actually decide to declare a dividend.
These two points I believe to mean that if the business id financial stable then the directors can decide to pay out a dividend or to plough more money back into the business. More often when a businesses balance sheet or earnings statement permits they often choose not to pay it out. This is mainly because if the business boosts stock prices then this inturn increases share prices which keeps the shareholders happy. So therefore I can interpret from this that it’s either small dividend payouts or nothing at all.
Then it can often be seen from a shareholders perspective that Directors are serving the Stakeholders first and the shareholders second, so then they try to sell their shares and then the shares can often be of little value or instead of selling their shares they can go to the board and try and remove them, if they choose to take this road they have very little limited ability to do so. So all the shareholders can pray for is a takeover bidder but this can work out to be very expensive and uncertain.
Its not all bad for shareholders, sure they suffer when times are bad but when times are good the receive the benefits. Basically they Share the Success and Share the Loss with the Business.
So to conclude this argument it is said that if Shareholders are not the Residual Claimants they ought to be. But why should they be? There is still no solved answer to support this.
3. The Team Production Argument Against Shareholder Primacy
This argument questions that while shareholders invest their capital into the company it simply is not good enough for the business to survive. It needs inputs from various stakeholders to be successful and to provide the shareholders with their dividend. For example we need employees to provide the good or service in return for payment and we need customers to buy the good or service.
So it’s a two way street Both Shareholders and Stakeholder are extremely important to the success of the business.
Like Shareholders, Stakeholders have expectations of the business for example job security and the prospect of promotion.
Stakeholders like employees believe that if they work hard enough they will reap the benefits from the business in a nonformal contract. So it is in the interest of the shareholders to help these expectation to become reality so that they make a gain because if employees work harder means a better service to customers etc. which means an increase in profit.
So if the Directors where to focus entirely on the Shareholders then the Stakeholder wouldn’t feel respected and then there wouldn’t be motivated staff so no increase in profits.
As illustrated in Strines Hypothetical if the firm is sold to the highest bidder Shareholders will benefit while Stakeholders will suffer with layoffs etc. but on the other hand if the firm sells for a lower price then both shareholders and stakeholders will benefit as there wouldn’t be any layoffs for the stakeholders. It means more to stakeholders that they are respected enough by the directors.
So to conclude this argument I can interpret that Directors need to maximise their profits but in order to do this they must serve their Stakeholders with the same respect as they do their shareholders, and often no dividend is paid out to protect the stakeholder. This is where director primacy takes effect meaning that Directors must either serve Shareholders or Stakeholders to maximise profits.
4. Counterbalancing Team Production Concerns: The Agency Cost Argument for Shareholder Primacy.
So this Argument is seen as the best argument for shareholder primacy. From what I gather it is said that Directors are seen as Agents and that Directors try to balance both interests of shareholders and stakeholders, but the world isn’t perfect and people take advantage of their position and look after their own interests. So directors try to do what is best and hassle free for them e.g. The Dcc Man who sold his shares after the profit warning.
So this Agency costs come into place, these costs can be measured by monitoring and measuring an agent’s performance. So the question is how can the agent’s performance be monitored and measured?
Share Price is a great way to measure and monitor the agent’s performance where a measure of stakeholder happiness is simply not enough! So the debate still is unsolved as to whether the director should serve its Shareholders or Stakeholders. It is also noted that in the interests of all parties Shareholder Primacy is very important and is referred to as the second best solution for all parties of the business.
But still the question cannot be answered if the interest of the business should lie in the interests of the Shareholders or Stake holders.
5. Some Empirical Evidence: Which Rule Do Law Makers, Managers And Shareholders Actually Choose?
There is no actual definitive answer to this question!!!
The only people that can decide what option is better lies in the hands of the executives, Directors and shareholders and employees who are all involved in the business on a daily basis and the there are people as Strine points out “who are faced with the necessity of choosing between strategies and rules that favour Shareholders, and strategies and rules that favour a broader range of corporate constituencies”.
So what I gather is that people involved with the business must make important decisions and live with the consequences if they choose the wrong ones and that Directors often get face hard decisions when choosing between Shareholders and Stakeholders and this is how Director Primacy is more favoured.
When Stakeholders are put first directors redirect wealth from shareholders which makes the stakeholders happier but the shareholders less happy. So technically they are sacrificing shareholders interests to serve the stakeholders.
It is also said that business that do not serve the interests of the Shareholder are more successful than firms that do.
To conclude this I gather that nobody can decide which option is more successful to the business as nobody can prove that Shareholder Primacy is efficient or inefficient.
Therefore nobody can decide who is to be served until the efficiency or success can be proved.