As an academically qualified neoliberal economist and management ‘scientist’ employed as a corporate executive with strategic management responsibilities – ie what Milton Friedman referred to as a corporate official – J Brigham (forgive this degree of anonymity) is presented with all sorts of exciting decision opportunities. They include possibly fraudulent dealing that could be tremendously beneficial for shareholders. The whole purpose of her job is ‘to make as much money for stockholders as possible’ to quote Friedman again. So how should those decisions be made?
The analysis for such decisions aims to calculate the net present value resulting from proceeding with a deal, compared with the calculation of not proceeding. Typically, Brigham admits, the more the net gain, the greater its apparent illegality. But such decisions need to be assessed clinically, without clouding its measurement with qualitative adjustments such as ethical values or what Brigham refers to as ‘religious considerations’.
If the deal could be shown to be fraudulent, then the company would risk being fined, but only if the fraud is uncovered. So the calculation of net present value of going ahead needs to be adjusted by a calculation of the anticipated fines, reduced by the probability of discovery, as well as taking into account the considerable number of years between gaining the benefit and paying the fines. Having carried out all those due calculations, decisions to go ahead would, according to Brigham, almost invariably be persuasive.
But what if she were to be held personally responsible for the fraud and punished accordingly? Would that change her decision? ‘Well, of course it would, but the decision was actually taken and implemented by the company, which is a legal person in its own right. It’s the company that must pay.’
That argument is worth consideration. Continue reading The World’s Greatest Crimes?