The managerial utility maximisation model

Simplified Model of Managerial Discretion: We will present the model in two stages to simplify the exposition.

The managerial utility maximisation model

By William SunJim Stewart and David Pollard Corporate governance reforms in developed countries in the last two decades have generated some fruitful outcomes, but did not solve the fundamental problems in corporate governance practices.

The corporate governance system not just failed to prevent the recent financial crisis and corporate collapses, but has actually incentivised corporations to mani-pulate share price and abuse corporate accounting principles and practices, to create and take excessive financial and business risks for short-term profit maximisation Clarke, The underlying problems with corporate governance are not just some technical or implementation issues, but more about the issues of paradigms, governing approaches and the orientation of corporate governance systems, which are deeply ingrained in Anglo-American financial capitalism.

Debates on Corporate Governance Failures The main problems with banks and the entire financial industry in developed countries that caused the financial crisis have not been resolved. For this reason, in Marchthe Governor of the Bank of England Sir Mervyn King warned that, without reform of the banks, Britain risks suffering another financial crisis The Telegraph, 05 March However, not everyone has agreed that the governance of banks and other financial institutions has been malfunctioned and resulted in the recent financial crisis.

There are three different views in the debate on the relationship between corporate governance and the financial crisis. The first view is that corporate governance was unrelated or little related to the financial crisis.

It is claimed that since the s corporate governance in the United States and other developed The managerial utility maximisation model has improved significantly.

Publicly held corporations were, in general, governed satisfactorily before and during the financial crisis with no significant correlation between corporate governance and the financial crisis Cheffins, Using a large sample of data on financial and non-financial firms from toAdams shows that the governance of financial firms was on average not worse than that of non-financial firms.

Boards of banks receiving bailout money were more independent than the boards of other banks, and bank directors received far less compensation than directors in non-financial firms. The second view is that the financial crisis was closely associated with the insufficient implementation of corporate governance codes and principles while current corporate governance frameworks are not wrong in general OECD, OECD identifies four weak areas in corporate governance that contributed to the financial crisis: The UK Financial Reporting Council shares a similar view that there were no major problems with corporate governance codes prior to the financial crisis and the only problem remained with the implementation of the codes Financial Reporting Council,p.

The third view is that the financial crisis was at least in part caused by a systemic failure of corporate governance. The failure of corporate governance was not purely an implementation issue, but more a systemic failure of institutional arrangements that were underpinned by increasingly popular paradigms or paradigmatic assumptions like market fundamentalism, self-regulation, self-interest human behaviour and shareholder primacy.

Moderation / Criticism / Exposition / Exposés

The carrot was pay linked to stock price, often in the form of stock options. A Four-Level Corporate Governance Framework Which one of the above three views best matches the reality of corporate governance?

The managerial utility maximisation model

To answer this question, we need to return to the concept of corporate governance first. The com- mon understanding of corporate governance is often narrowly confined to the structure and functioning of the board and the rights of shareholders in corporate decision-making Monks and Minow, ; Clarke, In a broad view, however, corporate governance concerns with what the purpose of the corporation is, in whose interest the corporation is run, who controls the corporation, how the corporation is controlled, and how the risks and returns from the governing activities are allocated Blair,p.

With this widened definition, we may divide the governance of the corporation into four levels of legal, cultural and institutional arrangements, including regulatory governance, market governance, stakeholder governance and internal or shareholder governance. Terms starting with M

Hence, corporate governance system refers to the whole set of regulatory, market, stakeholder and internal governance. Market governance is the use of various market mechanisms such as supply and demand, price signal, free competition, market entrance and exit, market contract and market bid to control and discipline corporate behaviour and action.

The managerial utility maximisation model

Stakeholder governance is the direct and indirect control or influence over corporate business, decision-making and corporate behaviour by key stakeholder groups who have direct or indirect interests in the corporation.

Internal corporate governance is the institutional arrangement of checks and balances among the shareholder general meeting, the board of directors and management within the corporation, prescribed by corporate laws and corporate internal rules.

In the above debate, the concept of corporate governance in the first and second views is restricted to the internal level of corporate governance, such as board independence, executive compensation and the exercise of shareholder rights.

Such an understanding of corporate governance does not include the external regulatory, market and stakeholder governance and control over the corporation. Moreover, even though those few indicators of internal governance might function well in practice or in principle prior to the financial crisis, they did not cover all the indicators of internal governance system, particularly the dynamic interrelationship among corporate members shareholdersboard of directors and management.

Therefore, the validity of their arguments is severely limited. Systemic Failures of Corporate Governance A systemic failure of corporate governance means the failure of the whole set of regulatory, market, stakeholder and internal governance, which has largely contributed to the on-going financial crisis.

Regulatory governance failure A regulatory failure in governing financial companies before the financial crisis was manifested in substantial deregulation and lack of regulation in the finance industry.

However, the strict supervisory rules over the finance industry in response to the Great Depression had been gradually abandoned from the s onwards. Market governance failure The claim that the market is the most efficient and rational way of allocating resources, monitoring corporations and disciplining corporate underperformance and misbehaviour has been advocated and promoted by neoclassical economists and modern finance theorists.

Yet, the optimal market governance hypothesis does not work well in practice. In capital market, for instance, the share prices of many corporations did not reflect the managerial inefficiencies. The market for corporate control movement in the s brought about more negative than positive effects.

Overall, the fundamental prerequisites for the operation of market disciplinary force were not in place prior to the financial crisis Clarke, Neoclassical economists claim that the market is the most efficient way of allocating resources, monitoring corporations and disciplining underperformance.

Yet, this hypothesis does not work well in practice.Managerial utility function. The managerial utility function includes variables such as salary, job security, power, status, dominance, prestige and professional excellence of managers.

Of these, salary is the only quantitative variable and thus measurable. The other variables . New Syllabus For Executive And Professional Programmes.

ICSI Notification No.2 of Introduction of New Syllabus for the Executive and Professional Programmes of the Company Secretaryship Course.

The systemic failure of corporate governance is particularly associated with the Anglo-American corporate governance model that has enabled, permitted or tolerated excess power and wealth at the hands of CEOs and cultivated a ‘greed-is-good’ culture in banks.

Promoted results

The theory of Managerial Utility Maximisation was developed separately by Berle-Means-Galbralth and Williamson. It is also known as Managerial Discretion Theory.

The Theory is based on the concept that shareholders or owners of the firm and managers are (two separate groups. This paper integrates elements from the theory of agency, the theory of property rights and the theory of finance to develop a theory of the ownership structure of the firm.

The Managerial Utility Maximisation Model Is Profit Maximisation always the major objective of a firm?


The production of goods and services in our economy today takes place within organisations, whether in the centrally planned economy or free market economy.

Williamson’s Model of the Managerial Discretion (With Diagram)