2012年6月19日星期二

Investment in why people become "neurotic"

Studies have shown that the company to shareholders of thinking and behavior become antisocial, holding a company's stock will our brains influence?
Cornell University School of Law, Company Law and Commercial Law Professor Lynn Stout, wrote a book in the mystery of the interests of shareholders ", the business community prevalence of the principle of maximizing shareholder value, the modern stock market system and social environment, good people investment behavior, most of them will become selfish "neurotic", and the other not so selfish investors between social and individual interests have to make difficult choices forced by collective pressure, and it will become a selfish neurotic . "
Now in the business sector, a general principle of the company was "will maximize shareholder value, shareholders will only focus on personal interests. However, this rational economic man (as the main economic decision-making is full of rational, that is, the pursuit of the goal is to achieve maximize their own interests), the concept is not always useful.
The problem is that of a rational agent theory, A fully rational, selfish person itself is the mentally ill, if he disregard the moral and other people's feelings, for their own material interests, they will do anything. Although this theory in a lot of economic research institutions, and many experts tend to behavioral economics, the study of actual decision-making process on the final decision-making. Behavioral economics theory makes relieved, that most investors are not conscious "neurotic".
Most people have some degree of pro-social (faithful to the established code of ethics), moral principles at the right time, in order to avoid harm to others at the expense of a small part of the self-interest. You may see the day's news would doubt this conclusion, but all kinds of ugly phenomenon did not become news because rare. No newspaper will do the title: "The employees do not steal anything, even if no one monitor will not steal.
A "social dilemma" (the scene of conflict of personal interests and groups of interests) experiment, subjects select one of two strategies, one is the maximization of individual interests, and the other is their own interests less, to other people within the group more benefits. 97% of the subjects chose the latter strategy. The researchers also found, to make the higher the cost of pro-social behavior, less prosocial sex. That is, if they pay is not too much, but can help others, most people are willing to do so.
In 1984, the U.S. Union Carbide in Bhopal, India, 45 tons of toxic gas spill, resulting in 4,000 deaths. If you can avoid this catastrophe, the shareholders of the company should be willing to a little less dividends. If the Gulf of Mexico oil spill to avoid BP shareholders will have the same performance.
Shareholders' pro-social behavior more directly reflects the (socially responsible investment is the investment decision-making is socially responsible investment fund with the economic, social, environmental unity of an investment mode), such as these funds invest in promoting consumer protection and environmental protection company, rather than the companies that manufacture weapons. Overall, the growth of socially responsible investment fund faster growth in the institutional investment industry. According to statistics, in 2010, investment assets of 12% by the socially responsible investment fund management.
A growing number of shareholders of the company to focus on the fulfillment of social responsibility, but why they do not have to socially responsible investment funds into more money? Why, for things outside of the stock less care?
Professor Einer Elhauge, Harvard Law School in 2005, the author explains the problem. Tend to make the investment decisions of the anti-social pro-social person, one to wear the hat of the shareholders, the professor explained that the induction of two reasons.
On one hand, are not familiar with the shareholders of the company's daily operations are not involved in the lack of say in anti-social corporate behavior can not be challenged, or even no way to be informed. They are concerned about stock prices, and even put pressure on the board of directors required to take damage to the interests of third parties of the decision-making.
On the other hand, pro-social investors is shaped成不了气候, it is difficult to get rid of the group influence. If the socially responsible investment fund income is slightly lower than the other funds, investors will pay a small price to pay to pro-social behavior. However, individual investors conscience investment decision will not affect the company's decision-making, even though there is very small. Some data suggest that the modern stock market is not to promote pro-social investment, investors are pro-social investment is largely dependent on the external environment. In a social environment, investors would be very selfish, and in another social environment will become more considerate of others, which may count a "good and evil gender personality". Maximize shareholder value principle of moral support for the idea of shareholders to try to raise the stock price; the same time, in that other investors are selfish, investors will follow to make a selfish act.
These may explain why some investors not only to the World Wildlife Fund capital injection, but smiling, holding the shares of oil and timber companies.
While most people are not unconscious neurotic ", but an investment decision will show as" neurotic ". A documentary mentioned in 2004 as the company's management must be to maximize shareholder value, the enterprise is a neurotic creature "," immoral had to make anti-social decision-making ". Professor of Law at the University of Toronto Ian Lee said: "become a 'sick' profits grab, not because of company rules, but from the pressure of shareholders."
Some shareholders may have been selfish and "neuroticism", do not mind the company to deceive consumers, damage to the environment. Studies show that most people but would rather sacrifice the meager dividends, but also do not want to see the company to deceive consumers, damage the environment. Socially responsible investment fund rate of return compared to other funds, even if lower, it will not where to go. "Neurotic" Shareholders are not natural, nor inevitable, but caused by man. Maximize shareholder value principle truly exist, and investment in pro-social behavior but does not amount to anything, pro-social shareholders tangled into the measure of social and individual interests, no alternative had to herd, so they became "nervous".

没有评论: