Shareholders will suffer through the actions of the few. Due diligence will be rewarded with dwindling returns for the shareholder.
Does Shareholder Value Matter Any More?
The old theory was that if banks took care of shareholder value, everything else would fall into place (Nocera 2009). Shareholders were considered one of the most important responsibilities that executives had. This was how it used to be. However, recent events make it apparent that creating shareholder value has a downside as well. As managers struggle to increase shareholder value, they ignore many business basics. They increased value has not real foundation and soon, as the company collapses under the debt loads used to create the perceived value, it is shareholders that have he most to lose (Nocera 2009).
Lately, the focus has been on getting the banks into lending mode again in order to stimulate the economy, regardless of the long-term effects on the shareholder (Nocera 2009). The focus is on finding a solution to the immediate crisis. Everyone hopes that these measures will build long-term stability, but as we discussed earlier, propping up the big banks may mean that we are only prolonging the inevitable failure.
Recently, shareholders have hardly been in the picture, as negotiations continue to focus on giving the banks a pair of crutches. When banking officials arrived in Washington to discuss the possibility of bailouts in private jets, it caused public outrage. This move was viewed as irresponsible use of company assets. It "demonstrated" to the public that they were only out for themselves, without regard to the needs of the company or to its shareholders. It appears that shareholder value has taken a back seat to other issues, at least for the current time being.
Shareholder value can be equated to good corporate citizenship. Managing with a focus on shareholder value means developing long-term focus on customer relationships. It means holding to business values that represent integrity and a responsibility to the whole. It reflects a caring attitude and the desire to be a good community citizen. Developing solid shareholder value can be considered an important strategic objective for banks.
The mortgage crisis reflects poor risk management on the part of banking institutions. They made loans that did not reflect solid investments. They did this in the name of increasing volume that was reflected in positive gains on the revenue side of the balance sheet. This did increase shareholder value for a short time. The banking industry was booming and became a haven for speculative investors. They had faith that bank managers were making good decisions and that this growth would continue. Shareholders were in Buy and Hold mode, as the reported revenues, and profits continued to climb.
Shareholders had no way of knowing what was about to come. All they could see was the balance sheets and the number continued to climb into the black. They could not see the details of the loans that were being made to create this illusion of prosperity. They could not see the poor credit scores, and the deals that were allowed to "slide by" even though, the buyers could barely afford the mortgage.
Risk management is the key to the banking industry. Lenders must use good risk-management strategy to build a solid base for long-term growth. In the beginning, homebuyers made unrealistic decisions about what they could afford and lenders let them get away with it. The banking industry laid risk management aside and focused on sales. Loans became more like a commodity than an investment. Using this mind-set, risk management was practically abandoned and the frenzy began. Bankers knew better than this in the back of their mind, but the lure of quick cash drew them in and they made a run for the top that would rival anything attempted in the past.
Shareholders and building long-term value was shoved to the back of their minds and bankers chanted the mantra of, "Sell, sell, and sell." Buyers who could never have dreamed of home ownership in the past could now afford the house of their dreams. All the while, short-term profits grew. Shareholders were caught up too, as they bought banking stocks by the billions, driving prices through the roof. However, this scenario was bound to come crashing down from the very beginning.
The banking industry, which in that past had been so careful to not allow it to enter into too much risk, suddenly had to come to the realization that many of the buyers could not afford their investments. Buyers began to default and homes began to lose value. Soon it all began to spiral down, as bad risks became bad assets. Shareholders continued to have faith...
Introduction Milton Friedman’s quote gets to the heart of the conflict between shareholder theory vs. stakeholder theory. Shareholder theory posits that a corporation’s sole responsibility is to maximize the return on investment (ROI) for shareholders. Stakeholder theory posits, on the other hand, that a company owes a duty to all stakeholders (not just shareholders)—members of the community, workers, consumers; in short, anyone who is part of or who is impacted in
As one analyst points out: "it owns neither content nor the delivery mechanism. Though a global business, it has no geographical control anywhere in the world. Since nearly all its consumer services are free, it doesn't have the power to raise prices and has no ability to exclude competitors or somehow block access to competing services. It operates in an environment of healthy competition" (Ulanoff 2009). On the other
These claims are virtually all based on the concept that corporations - particularly multinationals -- should be held accountable for their actions within their sphere of operations. "Corporations, for their part, have responded in numerous ways, from denying any duties in the area of human rights to accepting voluntary codes that could constrain their behavior" (Ratner, 2001, p. 436). In fact, this very point is echoed throughout the literature; for
Employment Discrimination at Wal-Mart Foundation of the Study This study examines the legislative and judicial climate that enables corporations like Wal-Mart to engage in practices that violate workers' rights. The popular consensus is that Wal-Mart, the largest retail store in the United States, displays an inordinate disregard for the human dignity and morale of its employees and, despite continual litigation, continues to blatantly violate the legal rights of its employees. Wal-Mart faces
There is abundant opportunity in the western U.S. that KKD has yet to address. Each aspect of the strategy plan is now addressed by functional area: Market Development Over the next three years, KKD needs to first concentrate on competing more effectively in those regional markets where Dunkin' Donuts to this point has dominated the sale of donuts and related food and beverage items. This must begin with a build-out of
Ethical Dilemmas & Marketing Ethical Dilemmas Ethical dilemmas in international marketing Background of Marketing Ethics Ethical Issues in Marketing Modern Debate in Stakeholder Theory Ethical Theories Teleological Theories Virtue Ethics Ethics in Marketing Ethical dilemmas in international marketing Humanity has long struggled with the question of what constitutes ethical behavior. The answer to this question has not always been simple or easy especially in the midst of conflicting interests. Businesses desire and need to sell products to consumers but serious issues
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now