The world's dumbest ideas. The bad news is that you could make a pretty long list of these. The good news is that they generally get called out pretty quickly. But there are some that just won't die.
Comments on others are welcome below, but for an increasing number of the people who look at corporate governance, one of the worst is shareholder value maximisation' (SVM).
I've written about this here before (see previous posts on the talent myth, on how bad CEO incentives lead to low business investment, stagnant economic growth, flat worker wages and rising inequality; and yesterday's on how financial incentives are worse than useless if you want to nurture creative thinking)..
Subscribe to MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
GMO's wonderful James Montier has now written on it as well. It's worth reading his whole piece,particularly if you are interested in how the idea that a company has no responsibility but to its shareholders and so management must be rewarded as though they were short-term shareholders came to be accepted wisdom.
He makes a few good key points.
The first is just how extreme the shift has been. Look at the mission statements for IBM, for example. In the early days it was all about three core principles: 1) respect for individual employees 2) a commitment to customer service and 3) achieving excellence. Today? The Roadmap 2010' shifted to the "primary aim of doubling earnings per share over the next five years."
You might think that's just fine after all, as a shareholder surely what you want is SVM. Not so. Montier proves pretty conclusively that "the underlying return generation of companies has fallen significantly under SVM".
First, options are a bad idea: they give executives none of the downside of a real shareholder but all of the upside, something that can only lead to skewed decision making.
Second, because (as I showed in my blog on the candle taskand this one on Tesco) "incentives don't always work in the way one might expect". In general, the higher (and more life changing) they are, the more people focus on the money (and the attempt to extract the maximum of it in the minimum amount of time) than on the task in hand and the bigger a mess they make of the task in hand.
All this has resulted in low rates of business investment. Why would a CEO of a public company who is incentivised by short-term profit, and who knows his tenure is likely to be under five years, sign off on long-term investments that might cut short term profits? He'd be nuts. Rather than to retain and reinvest cash for the firm he is incentivised to "downsize and distribute.*"
Pre SVM, some 10%-20% of the average public firm's cashflow was returned to shareholders. It was more like 50% by 2007. That isn't good.
It has also led to rising inequality: the beneficiaries of SVM are at the top of the income tree managers, shareholders and the financiers managing the buybacks and leverage that SVM encourages.
And finally, it has resulted in a low labour share of GDP: the victims of SVM are at the bottom of the income tree. Who puts up wages when they are trying to maximise short term profits? Quite. It's time for change.
* For more on this please read Andrew Smithers' Road to Recovery which I suggested here last year. More on it here.
-
House prices rise 2.9% – will the recovery continue?House prices grew by 2.9% on an annual basis in September. Will Budget policies and ‘higher-for-longer’ rates dent the recovery?
-
Nvidia earnings: what to expectNvidia announces earnings after market close on 20 November. What should investors expect from the semiconductor giant?
-
Beating inflation takes more luck than skill – but are we about to get lucky?Opinion The US Federal Reserve managed to beat inflation in the 1980s. But much of that was down to pure luck. Thankfully, says Merryn Somerset Webb, the Bank of England may be about to get lucky.
-
Rishi Sunak can’t fix all our problems – so why try?Opinion Rishi Sunak’s Spring Statement is an attempt to plaster over problems the chancellor can’t fix. So should he even bother trying, asks Merryn Somerset Webb?
-
Young people are becoming a scarce resource – we should value them more highlyOpinion In the last two years adults have been bizarrely unkind to children and young people. That doesn’t bode well for the future, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
-
Ask for a pay rise – everyone else isOpinion As inflation bites and the labour market remains tight, many of the nation's employees are asking for a pay rise. Merryn Somerset Webb explains why you should do that too.
-
Why central banks should stick to controlling inflationOpinion The world’s central bankers are stepping out of their traditional roles and becoming much more political. That’s a mistake, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
-
How St Ives became St Tropez as the recovery drives prices sky highOpinion Merryn Somerset Webb finds herself at the epicentre of Britain’s V-shaped recovery as pent-up demand flows straight into Cornwall’s restaurants and beaches.
-
The real problem of Universal Basic Income (UBI)Merryn's Blog April employment numbers showed 75 per cent fewer people in the US returned to employment compared to expectations. Merryn Somerset-Webb explains how excessive government support is causing a shortage of labour.
-
Why an ageing population is not necessarily the disaster many people think it isOpinion We’ve got used to the idea that an ageing population is a bad thing. But that’s not necessarily true, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
