I am guilty. Guilty of elevating increasing shareholder value to Napoleonic heights. I annually rank the top five financial institutions by total return to shareholders. I write about developing a strategic plan that results in financial returns that satisfy shareholders. I confess, I contributed to the notion that the shareholder matters above all else.
But many, if not most state business corporation laws don't agree. Take my home state, Pennsylvania, Title 15, Subchapter B Fiduciary Duty, Section 515 Exercise of Powers Generally...
"In discharging the duties of their respective positions, the board of directors, committees of the board and individual directors of a domestic corporation may, in considering the best interests of the corporation, consider to the extent they deem appropriate:
(1) The effects of any action upon any or all groups affected by such action, including shareholders, members, employees, suppliers, customers and creditors of the corporation, and upon communities in which offices or other establishments of the corporation are located.
(2) The short-term and long-term interests of the corporation, including benefits that may accrue to the corporation from its long-term plans and the possibility that these interests may be best served by the continued independence of the corporation.
(3) The resources, intent and conduct (past, stated and potential) of any person seeking to acquire control of the corporation.
(4) All other pertinent factors."
So, as I read (1) above, shareholders are certainly in the mix of parties impacted by a board decision. But so are members, employees, suppliers, customers, creditors, and communities of a corporation. I don't think the order in which the law was written constitutes a ranking. As I read it, and mind you I've never passed the bar, all constituencies have equal weighting.
Shareholder held banks are not not-for-profits. They make money to grow, be safe and sound, invest in personnel and technology, give back to their communities, and yes increase the value of their franchise for shareholders. Boards should be mindful that profits are as much for other interested constituencies as the shareholders. In other words, to a board member, hearing an employee say "I love working here", a customer say "I love banking here", should resound similarly to a shareholder saying "this is a great investment".
Banks used to be owned primarily by retail investors. As the industry consolidated, banks became larger, and retail investors became weary due to the financial crisis, institutional owners filled the breach. These investors care little about the employee that loves to work there, or the customer that raves about extraordinary service. Well, they do care if it ends up dropping more money to the bottom line that can be returned to shareholders in some fashion.
Institutional shareholders are much stronger, and more concentrated and vocal advocates for shareholder returns than the retail shareholder, who once took pride in investing in the local bank. Just because they are louder, should they be at the front of the line? Or should we all read our respective state's business corporation law on fiduciary duty of directors?