The destructive cult of shareholder value, by @DavidOAtkins

The destructive cult of shareholder value

by David Atkins

I have said and continue to maintain that it will be impossible to fix the economy until we begin to prioritize wages over assets. There are many causes of the problem, but the cult of shareholder value highlighted most recently in a tremendous post by Steve Pearlstein is among the most significant:

In the recent history of management ideas, few have had a more profound — or pernicious — effect than the one that says corporations should be run in a manner that “maximizes shareholder value.”

Indeed, you could argue that much of what Americans perceive to be wrong with the economy these days — the slow growth and rising inequality; the recurring scandals; the wild swings from boom to bust; the inadequate investment in R&D, worker training and public goods — has its roots in this ideology.

The funny thing is that this supposed imperative to “maximize” a company’s share price has no foundation in history or in law. Nor is there any empirical evidence that it makes the economy or the society better off. What began in the 1970s and ’80s as a useful corrective to self-satisfied managerial mediocrity has become a corrupting, self-interested dogma peddled by finance professors, money managers and over-compensated corporate executives.
Pearlstein notes that there is no legal requirement for corporations to "maximize shareholder value" and continues:

How then did “maximizing shareholder value” evolve into such a widely accepted norm of corporate behavior?

The most likely explanations for this transformation are two broad structural changes — globalization and deregulation — which together conspired to rob many major American corporations of the outsize profits they had earned during the “golden” decades after World War II. Those profits were so generous that there was enough to satisfy nearly all the corporate stakeholders. But in the 1970s, when increased competition started to squeeze out profits, it was easier for executives to disappoint shareholders than their workers or communities. The result was a lost decade for investors.

No surprise, then, that by the mid-1980s, companies with lagging stock prices found themselves targets for hostile takeovers by rivals or corporate raiders using newfangled “junk” bonds to finance their purchases. Disgruntled shareholders were only too willing to sell. And so it developed that the mere threat of a possible takeover imbued corporate executives and directors with a new focus on profits and share prices, tossing aside old inhibitions against laying off workers, cutting wages, closing plants, spinning off divisions and outsourcing production overseas. Today’s “activist investor” hedge funds, which have amassed war chests of tens of billions of dollars to take on the likes of Microsoft, Procter & Gamble, PepsiCo and Apple, are the direct descendants of these 1980s corporate raiders.

While it was this new “market for corporate control,” as economists like to call it, that created the imperative to boost near-term profits and share prices, an elaborate institutional infrastructure has grown up to reinforce it.

This infrastructure includes business schools that indoctrinate students with the shareholder-first ideology and equip them with tools to manipulate quarterly earnings and short-term share prices.
The corruption of this ideology is total. Lobbyists make politicians afraid to do anything that might disrupt the stock market lest next quarter's earnings go south; businesses are afraid to invest in long-term stability and real productivity lest some other company use smoke and mirrors to beat them on the next earnings report; and society rots as wages are pushed down while financial trickery and economic inequality increase.

Employee-owned companies can help set this to right, as could stronger corporate responsibility charters--though I'm skeptical of the efficacy of the latter approach. Punishing tax rates on the very highest incomes can reduce the incentives to engage in chicanery. But it's a complex problem that will likely require multiple solutions to solve.

Be sure to read Pearlstein's whole piece. Much food for thought there.


.