关于Shareholder与Stakeholder的assignment展示

关于Shareholder与Stakeholder的澳洲assignment展示

最初,在第一次声明中玛莎百货公司提到“统治”一词,那么它是什么呢?球员是谁?它的规则是什么?事实上它是如何工作的呢?…。现在,让我们从它的定义开始,统治意味着管理或控制一个公司的系统,包括股东和企业目标之间之前的关系。在过去,股东(所有者)也经常做经理的工作。但现在,公司中有一个分层,股东不需要做经理的工作。这意味着主要的球员可能包括股东(所有权)和管理团队(可能只是雇员)。从那时起,由于所有权和控制权的分离,一个主要问题就产生了-代理人。这个问题中最重要的事情是股东一直担心的。为确保管理者总是能得到股东的回报,股东应该做代理理论,来使代理成本控制例如管理方式,经理的行为,激励政策,…等相关事情。   在实践中，玛莎百货公司通常更重视利益相关者(谁能影响公司的行动,如员工、经理、供应商、客户、银行、…)而不是比股东(持有股票的人)。这意味着利益相关者和企业目标之间的先前关系以及股东的利益可能受到损害。例如,如果董事会并不是业主而只是员工,他们可能只关心如何保留他们的帝国和他们短期的安全和低风险的计划,他们不会把股东的利益最大化。   在利益相关者中将股东财富最大化-Maximizing Shareholder Wealth Over Stakeholder Interest    Initially, in the 1st statement Marks and Spencer company has mentioned to the word “ governance”, so what is it? who are the players? what are its regulations? how does it work in practice? …. Now let‘s start with its definition, governance means the system of administering or control a corporation in which includes the prior relationship between shareholders and corporate objectives. In the past, shareholders (owners) often did as managers also. But nowadays, there is a separation in corporation, shareholders are not necessary to be managers. That means the principal players may include the shareholders (ownership) and management teams (may be just employees). Since then, because of its divorce of ownership and control, there is an principal – agent problem occurred. The problem is the most important things that shareholders have been worried about. And to ensure the managers always act in shareholder’s return, shareholders should to do the agency theory so the agency costs have been occurred to control related things such as the way of management, manager s’ behavior, incentive policies,….   In practice Marks and Spencer company has much generally focused on the stakeholders (who can be affected by firm’s action such as employees, managers, suppliers, customers, banks,… ) than the shareholders (who own the stock). That means there is the prior relationship between stakeholders and corporate objectives and the shareholders‘ benefit may be damaged. For example, in case the board of directors are not the owners just employees, they may just concern how to remain their empire, their safety by short term and less risky plans, they do not put the shareholders ‘ benefit maximization at top.   Marks and Spencer company seems to forget one of the most importance regulation in governance is that the board of directors has the responsibility of overseeing the company, acting as a check on managerializm , so that shareholders’ best interest are appropriately prioritized (Glen Arnold, Corporate Financial Management, 4th edition). According to the study “ Stakeholder, shareholders and wealth maximization” (V.Sivarama Krishnan, University of Central Oklahoma, 2008) has a quick survey of some financial textbooks such as Brealey and Myers (2003), Moyer, McGuigan and Kretlow(2003) which have supported shareholder wealth maximization’s corporate goal too. It said Jensen (2001) have the supports that through shareholder wealth maximization would positively affect to the society wealth maximization.   Theoretically, according to Glen Arnold (Corporate Financial Management, 4th edition), a firm could have many possible objectives such as achieving a target market share, keeping employee agitation to a minimum, survival, creating an ever – expanding empire, maximization of profit and maximization of long term shareholder wealth. But in the 2nd statement, their aims seem to be focused on profitable maximization (short term objective) rather than shareholder wealth maximization (long term objective). To the firm ‘s view, the important things are how to get the stakeholders’ belief, how to do the right thing or right way and the shareholders’ dividends is just the reward for taking acceptable risks.   It’s consistent that shareholder wealth maximization is always as superior goal in a firm. But what is it ? and why does a firm must try to gain it? Shareholder wealth maximization means maximizing the value of dividends to shareholder. In the past, profit maximization was put in high priority, but now people have to understand that if you want to exist in the stock market the most focus must be in maximizing returns of its shareholders (maximize the price of shares, pay back healthy dividends or issue bonus shares ….). And a firm must to achieve this goal because some reasons are as follow:   Prospect: Between two companies, one may have a higher share price than other if it represents better future growth prospect. For example, VietNam stock market has two producing electric cable companies are TAYA (code TYA) and CADIVI (code CAV), because the CADIVI ‘s last year financial statement was much better than TAYA’s, the CADIVI’S share price is much higher than TAYA’s even though their produce quality is not much difference. That means shareholders who are investing in a company always expect good future returns.   Risk: Because shareholder wealth maximization is a long term goal, a firm must to gain a stable situation in return flows from time to time. That means between two the same return firms, the shareholders will choose the firm with lower risk.   Communication: shareholders often want to minimum their uncertainty by pointing out as much as they can about companies and tend to avoid unhealthy ones. For example, if shareholders have some bad news such as unfavorable government regulations, unhealthy financial statement, risky investment activities,…. They won’t invest in this share so its price can’t keep the stable situation anymore.   And the last but not least, all firms have to remember that shareholders are the real owners. That means all officers like CEO, CFO, … can manage the daily operation but they are just employees unless they are shareholders too. They have not the right to get any company profits or assets but shareholders have. They have basic duty is to promote the benefit purpose of firm members, shareholders.   By the way, Marks and Spencer‘s opinion maybe not fully award of the concept “ corporate social responsibility – CRS”. Their goal is how to make sure that their customers and wider stakeholders can always trust them to do the right thing, it makes people think they may ignore development business ethics in a business environment. Furthermore, a firm can create shareholder value not only by taking stakeholders’ belief but also by building the good relationship with the local community, employees, suppliers, environment …. For example, when firms choose local suppliers as much as possible, that means they support their community, reduce the energy wasted and also reduce the cost related such as deliveries, transportation,.. due to increase benefit. That is an oblique way in which they can find to maximize shareholders wealth. According to article “Shareholder Value Versus Stakeholders” of Value Based Management.net , the author tell us that in those nations with a market economy it is generally assented that firms should chase economic profitability. But, also not many people would not concur that firms also have reliable social responsibilities. The shareholder value perspective presses profitability over responsibility and looks firms principally as tools of its owners. The stakeholders value perspective presses responsibility over profitability and looks firms principally as coalitions to attend to all parties involved. Due to having powerfully incited employees and nurturing high standards of trust with all parties surrounding the firms, pursuing the joint interests of all stakeholders is not only more just, but will also maximize social wealth.   On the other hand, there are some different views of shareholder wealth maximization. To the study of “Stakeholder, shareholders and wealth maximization” (V. Sivarama Krishnan, University of Central Oklahoma, 2008) say the so called “stakeholder theory” offers a very difference view which posits that the focus on shareholders and firm value is lost and managers should be care with all stakeholders of the corporation…..Many strategic management textbooks (e.g. Harrison (2003), Pearce and Robinson (2003), Pitts and Lei (2002)) suggest a wider view of the ideal corporate aim deeply implied by the stakeholder theory. The stakeholder value access is staring to be seen as the desirable and preferred decision making design in not only management’s strategy, but also in other rules like marketing and management. It’s clear that the stakeholder theory is not the prior to the aim of shareholder wealth maximization.   Or in “The shareholder wealth maximization myth” posted by Todd Henderson on July, 2010, this is a damage for firms that want to make all effort to maximize profits, as they will inevitably make mistakes, and for companies that are not. Society would be much worse off, since it would put firms in a straight jacket that would limit their ability to meet the needs of their workers, customers, and investors, and it would dramatically raise the costs of risk taking . It is belief that duty to maximize shareholder value would be done by corporate managers, but this view comes from the shareholders’ opinion and not the rule. In so far as corporations are too concerned in profits, to paraphrase Shakespeare, the fault Senator Franken lies not in the law but in ourselves. That means the author did not support the ideal which managers must maximize shareholders wealth with any reason. To him, this is not legally enforceable and would be harmful for companies that are trying to do wealth maximization since they will inevitably make mistakes. Finally, it is much worse off to society.   According to the book “Behind The Corporate Hedge: Information And The Limits Of Shareholders Wealth Maximization” of Henry.T.C.Hu said that “Previous analyses have also failed to give adequate consideration to the expectations of shareholders. If, for example, the shareholders of a natural resource company are seeking a relatively “pure play” on that resource–in part because they believe the company's management has no comparative advantage in managing price risks–corporate hedging that increases shareholder wealth may re-duce shareholder welfare”. In this tongue, the usual “shareholder wealth maximization” directive is not only unclear, but also incomplete”.   In conclusion, through Marks and Spencer’s statements, people can see that they have big problems with the so called “governance” and the aims of a firm. Their governance has just concerned generally the stakeholders and they ignore the most important objective of a firm is to maximize shareholder wealth. To this firm, short - term profit growth is specified as firm’s objective. Marks and Spencer company must seriously innovate their financial management system to get it in the right way.