Successful decision making in finance requires a deep understanding of the company’s

objectives. Managers often apply to a variety of strategies that can ensure successful
performance and problem solving within an organization. The most common objective of
the firm is to increase the value of the firm’s stock and contribute to the wealth of the
owners.

In order words, the firm managers work for enhancing shareholder wealth, which is
introduced by the market price of a company’s common stock. In the majority of cases
wealth maximization of shareholders and owners is a long-term objective and it states
that “…management should seek to maximize the present value of the expected future
returns to the owners of the firm” (Moyer et al. 2008, p. 5).

Certainly, firms must also consider other important objectives of an organization,

including organizational culture improvement, analysis of retention policies, total quality
management, change management, and many other fields. More importantly, managers
should also be interested in the welfare of the community in particular and society in
general due to the ongoing process of globalization.

Despite possible shortcomings of the established priorities, shareholder or owner wealth

maximization should be at the core of management objectives. At the same time,
attention should be given to constraints and ethical concerns of increasing stock price
and, therefore, managers should find optimal balance while accomplishing the primary
goal of financial management.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Pursuing the Objective of

Shareholder Wealth Maximization

Putting the shareholder wealth maximization at the core of the company’ values and
goals creates a number of benefits. To begin with, the goal explicitly analyzes timing
and possible risks of the expected benefits produced by stock ownership. Managers
must also consider the components of timing and risk management while making
significant financial decisions, including capital expenditures (Moyer et al. 2008).

In such a manner, firms can solve problems that can improve shareholder wealth.
Further, it is possible to define whether a certain financial decision correlates with the
company’s objective.
In case a decision contributes to the augmentation of the market price of the company’s
stock, than it can also provide substantial benefits to the welfare of the company’s
owners and shareholders. However, in case the action does not meet the established
purposes, it should not be implemented.

Because increase in shareholder wealth is an impersonal (unbiased) goal, it can also be

considered as a considerable advantage for the firm. Shareholders and owners who
disagree with the firm’s policies are eligible to sell their stocks under more beneficial
terms as composed to the opportunities under the company’s strategy.

In case an investor has risk preference that is not adjusted by financing, or does not
conform to the firm’s decisions, the investor can sell his/her shares at higher price and
buy shares in the companies that are able to meet the investor’s requirements (Moyer et
al. 2008). Hence, the company should introduce effective strategies and policies that
would attract investors and would make them encourage company’s goals at the same
time.

With regard to the above objectives, shareholders wealth maximization can be justified
as the primary goal in financial management. Nevertheless, social corporate
responsibility in business can become the major obstacle for achieving the established
goal.

The point is that success of accomplishment of other objectives, as well as the

challenges caused by agency relations, may lead to deviations from the firm’s primary
objectives. Despite this fact, the shareholders’ wealth maximization objective creates
certain patterns and paradigms against which decisions can be considered and, as a
result, this objective is accepted in financial management analysis.

Narrow-focused adherence to the maximization of welfare of shareholders and owners

is strongly associated with unconstrained shareholder wealth maximization, which, in
fact, can result in serious shortcoming for the company. In this respect, Santos et al.
(2007) introduce a detailed overview of the constraints that the firm can meet while
achieving the shareholder wealth maximization.

The researchers explain that the concern exists because of insufficient data
represented on the topic. Therefore, based on agency theory, Santos et al (2007) have
proposed their model of increasing the welfare of stakeholders that should rely on a
constraint. In other words, much concern should be connected to meeting the goals of
all stakeholders involved into business activities of the firm.

In particular, the maximization objectives “…suggest that shareholder wealth

maximization should not be achieved at the expense of stakeholders such as
employees, environment, local community, creditors, and similar entities” (Santos et al.
2007, p. 110). In such a manner, the presented approach to finance management
indirectly influences the ethical standards, as well as social responsibilities in the
company.

Advertising

Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours
Learn More

Realization of constraints of shareholder wealth maximization can significantly enhance

ethical curriculum and, therefore, the shortcomings of the objectives should be outlined
as well. In this respect, owner’s welfare does not provide distinct relationship between
stock price and financial decisions.

The second disadvantage of wealth increase can become a reason for management
frustration and anxiety. Such an occurrence can emergence when managers are more
concerned with short-term goals of a firm. Therefore, they can often confuse
shareholder wealth maximization with the increase in company’s profits.

Therefore, specific attention should be given to the distinctions between these two goals
(Shim and Siegel 2008). Hence, profit maximization can constitute a part of owner
wealth advancement, but it cannot be considered a priority for the managerial staff.

It is an accepted fact that increase in shareholders’ wealth is prescribed as a relevant

function for analyzing capital projects. At the same time, the objective does not
represent a description of managers’ genuine objectives. In particular, there is a
protracted debate in regard to economic objectives of managerial staff who do not
possess controlling shares.
As a result, the possibility of emergence of conflicts of interest between managers and
shareholders is obvious. According to Grinyer (1986), “…managers should identify and
satisfy at least the minimum requirements of important participants in their company if
they wish to ensure its survival” (p. 320). Therefore, most of the managers should
approach rationally the wealth maximization.

Nonetheless, rational financial managers would try to increase the net cash flows
created by a company, with regard to the limitations that reflect risk, as well as financial
requirement of the members of an organization. With regard to the above, it is possible
to argue that managers will prefer accumulating more cash to fewer amounts.

Their focus, therefore, will be made on effective operational management. Another

important constraint of shareholders’ wealth maximization lies in excess attention to the
financial issues which can lead to a failure of accomplishing nonfinancial goals of an
organization.

Despite the above-highlighted constraints and shortcomings, much evidence reveals

that shareholder wealth increase is the prevailing goal for business corporations. In this
respect, Fatemi et al. (1983) introduces a model by means of which the researchers
have discovered the priority of business organization, in which the first place is given to
the goal of increasing the wealth of owners.

Advertising

Not sure if you can write a paper on Should the Primary Objective of Management
be to Increase the Wealth of Shareholders and Owners? by yourself? We can help
you
for only $16.05 $11/page
Learn More

As per the secondary goals, emphasis has been placed on sales maximization, earning
smoothing, and liquidity goal (Fatemi et al. 1983).

Ethical Standards Reconsidered

In case a company tries to increase its stock price, much concern should be connected
with the benefits it can provide for society. In most of cases, shareholder wealth
maximization is generally good, apart from the possibility of illegal actions, such as
“…attempting to form monopolies, violating safety codes, and failing to meet pollution
control requirements” (Besley and Brigman 2011, p. 168).

Other than that contributes greatly to the welfare of society as well. To achieve this
purpose efficiently, stock price maximization must involve efficient plants that
manufacture products and services of high quality and at an acceptable price. Further,
stock price increase requires product development to meet the customers’ needs.

More importantly, it should also encourage introduction of profit through innovation,

namely new technology and new products. Employment sphere should also be
managed properly and, therefore, the task of the managers is to ensure competitive
salaries. Finally, increase in shareholders’ wealth requires courteous and efficient
services, well-situation business establishments and optimal stocks of merchandize.

All the above-mentioned factors are indispensible to maintaining a customer base

necessary for producing sales and, therefore, revenues. In addition, in order to sustain a
competitive advantage, business activities of an organization must be presented in
congruence with all stakeholders, including owners, customers, employees, the
government, local residents, and the environment.

Consequently, most activities contributing to stock price maximization are beneficial to

society as well. In this respect, free enterprise, profit-motivated economics have
produced significant results as compared to communistic and socialistic business
systems. Due to the fact that managerial finance is incredibly important in operating
firms successfully, which is necessary for a productive and healthy economy, finance is
of great importance from social perspective.

While considering the role of shareholder wealth maximization in shaping social welfare,
much emphasis should be placed on ethics and morality of financial management.
Therefore, it is necessary to define the objective of increasing shareholder wealth from
the viewpoint of moral justification for business behavior.

To uncover the ethical perspectives, Dobson (1999) introduces the essential aspects of
corporate culture through which it is possible to analyze the morality of shareholder
wealth maximization. Specifically, the researcher believes that making decisions
premised on stock price increase is morally neutral and that augmentation of
shareholders’ wealth could not be regarded as a strictly immoral action.

Within this context, decision making is considered “…a particular moral stance open to
moral evaluation” (Dobson 1999, p. 69). In this respect, a financial manager who makes
decisions for maximizing stock prices is morally neutral. However, this assumption is
popular mostly among financial examinations and is explained by moral self-
examination.

As a result, such a narrow-focused method creates a number of limitations to objective

evaluation. In this respect, Dobson (1999) argues, “the acceptance and implementation
of shareholder wealth maximization as the ultimate goal entails the acceptance and
implementation of several layers of philosophical context” (p. 71).

First of all, it implies accepting a specific interpretation of utilitarian theory, in which

value is presented as the greatest good and moral decisions within which company can
rely solely on the outcomes of those decisions. Consequently, to prefer shareholder
wealth maximization is to shape a specific moral environment in a broader context of
moral and ethical philosophy.

Utilitarian theory, therefore, produces only one context within a broader one. As an
approval of a business behavior, shareholder wealth maximization is justified by
business ethicists whose criticism is premised on the fact that “shareholder wealth
maximization places preeminent emphasis on the interests of shareholders” (p. 71).

Therefore, though the term shareholder wealth maximization often implies a

materialistic interest, it, in fact, emphasizes the importance equity market value
discovered through the company’s stock price.

With regard to the above-presented considerations, the concept of shareholder wealth

maximization implies that “a finance professional, rather than having to reconcile
diverse moral perspectives, can rely on the market mechanism to translate moral
concerns into economic signals” (Dobson 1999, p. 74).

In other words, the morality of the objective does not depend on the objective itself, but
on the personal intentions of the executive agents.
The objectivity of the firm’s intention to maximize the wealth of owners and shareholders
is still undermined by the existing standards of ethical behavior. As a result, the action
can hardly be defined a priority for maintaining company’s welfare and reputation.

According Chambers and Lacey (1996), “a corporation that embraces SWM does not
establish a moral and ethical position but rather merely acts as a conduit for the ethical
beliefs and desires of market participants” (p. 93). What is more important is that market
price can also reveal ethics, along with other values of a company, including cash flows.

Hence, a corporation that seeks to increase the wealth of its owners and shareholders
makes the company’s stocks more attractive for investors. In case investors consider
ethical behavior and social corporate responsibility a priority, they will unlikely to finance
firm and, as a result, stock prices can become considerably lower.

So, an ethical firm have much more possibilities to sustain a competitive environment as
compared to unethical firms that care only about profit maximization.

Consideration of social corporate responsibility has a potent impact on deciding whether

shareholder wealth maximization is a paramount goal for a business firm. There is also
evidence proving positive reaction of world’s market on the company’s announcement
of corporate social responsibilities, which means it can also positively influence the
company’s profit increases, as well as augmentation of shareholders’ wealth.

According to the research studies, “…firms that experience a positive market reaction
are larger, with lower leverage and have a higher level of employee productivity”
(Clacher & Hagendorff 2012, p. 265).

Because social corporate responsibility promotes ethical behavior and moral orientation
of the firm, it is purposeful to state that profit increase can also be a motivating factor for
shaping the company’s values. Well-established relationships between stakeholders
provide an optimal balance for increasing profits and wealth of the company’s owners.

In a crisis context, shareholder wealth increase may lead to certain behaviors and
decisions that contradict duties, such beneficence, reparation and non-maleficence. In
this respect, Alpaslan (2009) contrasts shareholder wealth maximization model, which
considers social responsibility and ethical concerns a constraint, with corporate
governance model, which considers ethical concerns to be an important objective.
In this respect, the researcher stands against shareholder value maximization approach
and prefers stakeholder model as a more relevant technique of corporate governance.
In addition, Alpaslan (2009) that the objective of maximizations is justified and beneficial
for the company unless it violate legal and ethical norms.

However, in a context of a crisis situation, managers often resort to elimination of

shareholders’ losses, which does not always meet the purpose of shareholder
maximization. Nevertheless, this approach is still paramount for the welfare of the firm
because it produces greater good for the company, as well as meets ethical concerns
more effectively than the model of corporate governance.

To define the benefits of shareholders’ wealth improvements and its importance for an
organization, it is purposeful to compare it with other models of corporate governance.
The reasons for choosing stakeholder model are predetermined by a number of
reasons.

To begin with, the stakeholder model is more congruent with the principle of fair
distribution, which underlines the significance of including all stakeholders in managing
company.

Further, stakeholder models acknowledges the concept of ‘non-instrumental ethics’

according to which implies that “…when there is a conflict between the shareholder
model and ethical customs or moral principles, ethical customs, ethical customs should
dominate” (Alpaslan 2009, p. 42). Finally, the stakeholder model has different norms
and, therefore, it opposes to the norms of the shareholder model.

The above is an antagonistic view on the ethicality of shareholder value maximization

approach to managing a company. At the same time, the moral neutrality is the
argument that still supports the necessity to increase wealth of owners, particular on the
threshold of globalization and innovation. Most importantly, the objective is much more
effective in creating a competitive advantage and attracting investors.

Conclusions
An in-depth analysis of various aspects and perspectives of financial management has
revealed that stakeholder wealth increase should be considered as a priority for a
business firm due to a number of reasons. From an ethical perspective, ensuring
stakeholders’ wealth creates more opportunities for a firm to encourage profit
management and introduce a strong competitive advantage.

Second, stakeholder wealth maximization provides a wider picture of how time and risk
management can be arranged with regard to stock prices balancing. Third, focus on
shareholders’ welfare allows managers to define whether financial decision correlates
with the company’s philosophy.

Despite the fact that the goal is premised on meeting personal interest, it can still be
regarded as impersonal objective because owners and shareholders’ intentions directly
influence the overall organizational performance.

Apart from the benefits of shareholder wealth increase, there are certain constraints and
shortcomings that can be met. This is of particular concern to the problem of social
responsibility and ethical behavior, which is often neglected. However, this matter
cannot be considered critical because financial managers making decisions are morally
and ethically neutral.

Moreover, the objective is subject to utilitarian ethical principles, which defines positive
consequences as a priority. Overall, the importance of adhering to the proposed
scheme does not only provide welfare to the internal environment, but produces values
at an external level.

In particular, owners and shareholders will still follow the ethical models of behavior and
introduce effective conditions for other stakeholders, including employees, customers,
the government, and environment.

Reference List