Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 353

The shareholder now ranks last

There is a clear change in the ranking of company stakeholders. To deal with the healthcare crisis, which is becoming an economic crisis, companies around the world have endured subtle, and not so subtle, pressures to re-arrange who they look after first among their stakeholders.

In normal times, and in more capitalist cultures, it is the shareholder that usually ranks as the most important stakeholder for listed companies. This has clearly been the case in economies such as the US, UK and Australia. A round of redundancies for companies listed in these markets has often been cheered by shareholders with a rally in the stock price. Big distributions are paid to keep shareholders happy and often these distributions come at the expense of labour-market-supporting capex.

The result of a shareholder-focused equity market is clear. Profitability is higher, resources are used more efficiently and returns to the shareholder are greater. Plenty of wealth is created.

Coronavirus has changed priorities

However, the global pandemic has led companies to re-assess who they ‘look after first’ when conducting their business. While the shareholder has previously ranked first, we think they now rank last. Our guess of the current order of stakeholders in most developed countries, including Australia, is in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Stakeholder ranking for Aussie listed companies

Old

New

Shareholders

Employees

Creditors

Government/Community

Customers

Customers

Suppliers

Creditors

Employees

Suppliers

Government

Shareholders

Source: MST Marquee

Our thoughts here are supported by recent changes in how companies conduct their business. For example, succumbing to pressure from the Bank of England, UK-based banks announced a cancellation of their 2019 dividends (which still haven’t been paid) and agreed not to carry out share buybacks. The UK regulator welcomed the change.

In the US, companies receiving emergency loans from the Federal Reserve’s US$4.5 trillion facility will face temporary limits on what they can pay executives. They will also need to keep their workforces stable and face restrictions on shareholder distributions like buybacks and dividends. There have also been other efforts to help during the pandemic which makes it clear shareholders are currently not the most important.

European alcohol companies, like Diageo, often on the wrong side of the ESG stock screens, are now creating hand sanitiser to be donated. Fashion companies like Prada and Zara have shifted their focus to making surgical masks, also to be donated. Novartis has promised to donate enough doses of its malaria drug to treat several million people if trials show it is effective in fighting COVID-19.

Encapsulating all of this change, the CEO of Bank of America, the chairman of DSM (a Dutch chemical company) and chairman of Siemens and Maersk have written an open letter endorsing the change in stakeholder principles where the shareholder seems to rank last.

Corporate actions in Australia

In Australia, the banks are providing loan repayment holidays at significant immediate cost to their own shareholders. They have also been asked to bear some of the pain in New Zealand. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has asked landlords, including REITs (listed property trusts), to ‘work out the issues’ with their struggling tenants, at a likely cost of considerable dividend cuts.

The Australian Energy Regulator has asked for a whole-of-industry-response to households and businesses enduring challenges. Meanwhile, Transurban said it will shorten the amount of time it uses to pay bills and proceed with current projects to employ people. However, the company seems to be putting its suppliers and creditors ahead of the broader community. While Transurban will help those customers who reach out to them, they stopped short of providing a blanket reduction in their tolls. We are not sure how many of their customers have the time to ask them for help paying tolls, or how many were listening to the analyst call, but it did seem like the ‘lowest cost option’. We wonder if they’ll change their mind given the government hands out contracts to them. Plus their largest shareholders, the industry super funds, have members who are renowned to be some of the most socially conscious investors in Australia.

Change in the face of a pandemic 

We think the current message to corporate Australia is clear: ‘Do Your Bit’. You need to help out and shareholders will endure pain in the short term. In our view, Australia Inc should adopt a whole-hearted approach here, not only for the livelihood of the broader community but also to generate goodwill with their other stakeholders, to allow for their business to return to normal when the economy does.

However, we need to also consider the rules to investing could be changing for some time to come. While less shareholder-focused companies are appropriate for now, over the longer term this could mean less efficient use of resources, wasteful investment and less wealth for everyone.

We hope the current era where shareholders rank last is temporary.

 

Hasan Tevfik is an Investment Strategist at MST Marquee. This article does not constitute a representation that an investment strategy or recommendation is suitable or appropriate for an investor’s individual circumstances. It may not be construed as personal advice or a recommendation. 

 

  •   15 April 2020
  • 6
  •      
  •   
6 Comments
Pablo Berrutti
April 15, 2020

What a shortsighted article.

Well before COVID-19 there was a growing wave of recognition that a stakeholder approach to company management is the best way to deliver for shareholders over the long run. Most notably (and surprisingly) by the business roundtable in the US.

The era of shareholder primacy has been defined by myopia, short-termism, and exploding executive pay while often delivering poor outcomes for customers, employees and the environment - all ultimately unsustainable, take the banking RC, systemic gender bias, or the impacts of climate change as examples. It has also, as GMO showed, worse for shareholders.
https://www.gmo.com/globalassets/articles/white-paper/2014/jm_the-worlds-dumbest-idea_12-14.pdf

Shareholders, are of course important stakeholders, but managing companies is not about creating pecking orders of who comes first and who comes last, it is about recognising that companies must deliver value for all stakeholders while being good environmental stewards if they are to succeed over the long-term. Doing so requires flexibility and balancing of interests. This evolution in corporate thinking began well before and will continue long after the effects of this health crisis pass.

Jack McCartney
April 15, 2020

Paul Polman from Unilever also agrees with Pablo and Jack Welch....
https://www.ft.com/content/72d68b60-4009-11df-8d23-00144feabdc0

If we are serious about becoming carbon neutral by 2030 (and we must be), it's time to move on from Milton Friedman and neo-liberalism and get serious about adopting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

Michael
April 15, 2020

Ignore shareholders at your own peril, just ask Bill Shorten

AlanB
April 16, 2020

I agree with the article.
I invest in companies and become a part-owner of that company not to impose my views on management, not because I expect them to become agents of whatever is currently popular, but for the good of my family. I have to invest my savings in shares because term deposits are obsolete. In return for the risk I take with shares I expect a return from an either an increase in the value of my investment and/or a sustainable dividend income. If the company cancels the dividend I will not be a happy shareholder and will vote accordingly. It would be obscene for my dividend income from my share investment savings, which my family depends on for financial security, to be regarded by government or social activists as optional and sacrificial.

LEATH HUNT
April 16, 2020

Forget shareholder's interest at the company's peril.

Tony
April 19, 2020

You can ignore shareholders but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Cutting dividends will take away an important income source for retirees, as retirees spend down their assets due to no income, they will become eligible for a part age pension (or more age pension) and all the extras that go with it. In my case I am eligible for the jobseeker payment, (assets held in super don't count) and for the first time in my life I have made a claim, I consider this as compensation for the reduced dividends in my SMSF.

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Four simple strategies deliver long-term investing comfort

LICs vs ETFs – which perform best?

Why I dislike dividend stocks

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Why spending more in early retirement can improve lifetime income

Conventional wisdom encourages retirees to preserve superannuation. But if those likely to qualify for the Age Pension later in life spend a little more today, it may deliver higher lifetime income and a more stable retirement.

It’s time for LICs to die

A high-profile dividend cut and a prominent fund manager’s apology have reignited a long-running debate. If investors can access similar exposures more cheaply and efficiently elsewhere, what exactly is keeping LICs alive?

Is it time to bail on Australian stocks?

For generations, Australian investors have backed banks, miners and dividends. But has that loyalty come at a cost? A look at the numbers raises an uncomfortable question about where future returns will come from.

Testamentary trusts survived the trust tax. The drafting battle has just begun.

The fight over testamentary trusts looked settled. Then the draft legislation arrived. Hidden in a technical detail is a question that could force many families to rethink wills they thought were already future-proof.

The new capital gains tax trap for your portfolio

Investors have long accepted one portfolio rule without much question. A major tax shift could change that calculation entirely, forcing difficult trade-offs between risk, discipline and an overlooked cost lurking beneath.

The investing rule that explains the next market crash

What if investment success depends less on picking the right assets and more on understanding the decisions of other investors? A principle borrowed from game theory offers a different perspective on markets.

Latest Updates

Fixed interest

Higher yields are creating opportunities in global bonds

Bond markets are adjusting to a new reality, but not in the ways investors expect. With markets repricing and capital competing for attention, investors may need to rethink where resilience and opportunity lie. 

Economy

Are we in a recession?

What if the warning signs are already everywhere? From supermarket aisles to company failures, investors are being bombarded with recession signals. But most face a different risk that can be just as dangerous for portfolios. 

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs - Division 296 actuarial certificates

The tax bill might be yours, but the event that caused it may not be. A key Division 296 calculation can sometimes attribute earnings in ways that many SMSF trustees won't instinctively expect or fully appreciate.

Property

The first impact of negative gearing reform is not the tax bill

Negative gearing changes formally begin in 2027, but the first consequences may already be here. A subtle shift is quietly influencing who can borrow, how much they can access and which property strategies still stack up.

Economy

The oil market is running out of easy answers

The biggest threat to markets may not be what investors are watching. The numbers have stopped adding up and supply is harder to measure, with forecasts becoming simple guesses. A more fragile reality is being masked.

Investment strategies

The state of investor knowledge in Australia

Australians are investing more than ever, yet a surprising divide is emerging between those building wealth effectively and those making costly mistakes. Surprisingly, the gap has little to do with income, age or starting capital.

Taxation

Complexity and capital gains

A case study shows that the ‘30% minimum CGT’ is a poorly conceived tax that adds significant complexity to an already over-complex system. A less complicated model would create a much fairer progressive tax scale.

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.