| Title: | Market Investing |
| Moderator: | 2155::michaud |
| Created: | Thu Jan 23 1992 |
| Last Modified: | Thu Jun 05 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 1060 |
| Total number of notes: | 10477 |
I am taking a business ethics course, I need to debate a question that
I disagree with and since it relates to stockholders, stakeholders,
etc. I thought someone here might have some ideas for me to pursue.
Under any reasonable definition of "business ethics" businesses must
make full, fair and timely disclosure of the current and prospective
state of their business to all stakeholders (shareholders, employees,
vendors, etc.). This responsibility can not be mitigated by the
adverse nature of any such disclosure nor can mangement abrogate it
through failure to inform themselves. Deniability is not an ethical
strategy. It is inherently unethical for mangement to enrich
themselves and harm their stakeholders through failure to meet this
responsibility.
How do you disagree with that?
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 503.1 | CSC32::S_MAUFE | this space for rent | Tue Jun 22 1993 14:07 | 14 | |
national security and the CIA's airline? other than that you picked the
wrong side of the argument. You could argue against giving out
competitive information, but the middle sentence negates that line of
reasoning.
Also, you could argue whether timely but incomplete information might
panic stockholders, whereas waiting a week for a more detailed
statement might be the better option, ala the Pepsi scare.
Or, if you were to release some adverse information about a new drug a
day before an option expires, perhaps you should wait a day.
I'd ask the question in JOYOFLEX, where you get a lot of debaters.
| |||||
| 503.2 | Let's not tell'em where the bombs drop | NOVA::FINNERTY | Sell high, buy low | Tue Jun 22 1993 14:18 | 15 |
Full disclosure; what does this mean?
Clearly it does not mean "full disclosure" in the literal sense, since
information passes not only to shareholders but to competitors as well,
which is contrary to the interests of the shareholders. If I had to
argue the 'hard' side of the argument, I'd make the case that
information that helps analysts understand the sources of competitive
strengths and weaknesses only helps the competitors and hurts the
shareholders.
(maybe you can even do this with a straight face)
;)
| |||||
| 503.3 | BRAT::REDZIN::DCOX | Wed Jun 23 1993 07:42 | 11 | ||
As long as the statement takes the position that "state of their
business" refers to FINANCIAL state (and that is the currently accepted
understanding in Investment and Regulatory communities) and that
"timely" refers to quarterly reports in general with non-scheduled
announcements due to extraordinary events (again, normal
understanding), I agree with the statement.
I could argue against the statement (any decent debator should be able
to assume either position), but not even half-heartedly.
Dave
| |||||
| 503.4 | THANKS | CASPRO::LMARINO | Wed Jun 23 1993 13:46 | 5 | |
Thanks for the help. re:3 You're right a decent debator could
probably handle this one, things is I am a beginner. Thanks for
the input. I appreciate the help.
| |||||