The Professional Financial Advisor
Toronto-based Financial Advisor John De Goey offers thoughts about fee-based advice, holistic planning and capital markets.
Corporate Mandate
By John De Goey Tuesday, May 24, 2005
A man (even if that man is a corporation) cannot serve two masters. Either he is serving shareholders or he is serving clients. Both are noble. Both are justifiable. But both cannot be served simultaneously.
I just finished reading Joel Bakan’s book “The Corporation”, which I received as a Christmas present. As a UBC corporate law professor, Bakan’s basic thesis is that since corporations are legally considered to be people, what kind of a personality type might reasonably apply to a corporation? The rationale put forward shows pretty convincing evidence that if corporations were in fact human, they would be seen by society as irresponsible psychopaths who lack empathy and are incapable of feeling remorse.
Corporations were brought into existence to make money. That is their overarching purpose. Senior executives, therefore, have a legal obligation to “maximize shareholder value” at the expense of all else. In fact, the law forbids all other actions and motives. When side-effects (something economists call “externalities”) do harm to society, corporations look for ways to avoid the blame. Think of the long history of harm done by corporations through time: Bhopal, Exxon Valdez, Thalidomide, Enron. The list goes on and the market timing scandal that pitted the interests of shareholders against those of unitholders is likely to go down as another fine example in a long line of externalities.
It is with this in mind that I reflected upon the re-assuring tone and content of all the web sites, newsletters and mission statements that so many investment firms (both those who create investment products and those who recommend them) show to their clients. Almost without fail, there will be a reference to the phrase “the client comes first”. Clients, always on the lookout for decent, high-integrity companies to work with, are presumably made to feel all warm and fuzzy when they read this- and to hand over their life’s savings as an expression of their unfailing trust in these reassuring words.
A man (even if that man is a corporation) cannot serve two masters. Either he is serving shareholders or he is serving clients. Both are noble. Both are justifiable. But both cannot be served simultaneously. In the majority of cases, the more money a firm makes, the higher the cost borne by clients. Conversely, the more prices are cut to benefit clients, the more shareholders will feel the pain. Profits derived from price changes, for instance, are a zero sum game. Whenever one party is doing well, it is as sure as the night follows the day that this comes at the expense of the other party.
What I found try astounding in the book is that one of the world’s re-eminent economists, Milton Friedman is of the opinion that corporate profit is a moral imperative. Friedman believes that corporate responsibility is both illegal and immoral if it compromises profits. He believes it is both illegal and immoral to put the client’s interests first.
Quite apart from the severe consequences if Friedman is right (jail time for installing SO2 scrubbers?), this could also lead to somewhat humourous situations. Imagine having a shareholder showing up at a corporate AGM brandishing a mission statement saying “It says here that you’re putting the clients’ interests first- what the hell is that about, Mr. CEO? If you don’t start charging as much as the market will bear and sending me the money in the form of higher dividends by the end of the next quarter, I’ll get you ousted.”
The simple lesson is that things are seldom as they appear. It is obviously disingenuous of corporations to suggest that they are simultaneously pursuing both agendas to the point where both sets of stakeholders’interests first. No one can have it both ways.
Even if CEOs said something like “we aim to balance the legitimate interests of all our stakeholders”, I would buy in, although Friedman likely would not. My view on the obvious disconnect is that the ubiquitous bumpf about putting clients first is really just another cynical attempt to get people to give you their money. Corporations don’t really mean it. Friedman says they would be breaking the law if they did.
