Michael has no moral "right" to undermine their loan evaluation process even if he genuinely believes that the lender will not be harmed by the deception. After all, beliefs are always subjective and people in Michael's position can be very sure about what they genuinely believe but still be wrong.
One need look no further than the U.S. housing market in 2007 to see what can happen when peoples' beliefs about the value of property and about the ability of borrowers to pay back loans are wrong. Therefore, Michael is acting unethically to misrepresent information to the lender that the lender intends to use to determine whether or not the loan to Kokomo is safe enough to issue. Michael probably believes (honestly) that the lender simply does not understand enough about Kokomo's business...
He probably feels morally justified in lying for that reason.
The more ethical approach to the same situation and the one that I would prefer would be to devote the necessary effort to teach the lender about Kokomo's position and to present all of the facts that might not be apparent from the traditional information requested on the loan application. Michael should create a presentation to educate the lender so that the lender can understand that the poor past profits recorded for Kokomo are simply not a reliable indicator of the security of the loan. Michael should illustrate why the loan will enable Kokomo to become profitable and repay the loan instead of relying on unethical deception to get the loan.
