This paper analyzes Norman Jewison's film Other People's Money through the lens of corporate finance and business ethics. The review examines the central conflict between maintaining a struggling but potentially recoverable company versus liquidating its assets for short-term shareholder gain. By evaluating the competing arguments presented by company defender Jorgenson and corporate raider Garfield, the paper identifies two competing business philosophies: long-term wealth creation versus short-term profitability. The analysis concludes that true shareholder value requires neither pure sentimentality nor pure asset-stripping, but rather strategic reinvestment, technological adaptation, and competent management.
The principal issue presented at the New England Wire & Cable stockholder meeting in Norman Jewison's film Other People's Money revolves around whether shareholders should continue to support a loss-making company with apparently no future. Though the obvious answer appears to be negative—given that every business must maximize shareholder value—several pertinent facts require consideration. First, although the company's main wire and cable-making business has been running at a loss, it still maintains several profitable divisions that support it. Second, the company has become a takeover target precisely because it has no debt and its market value has dropped below the potential sell-off price of its assets. Third, Larry Garfield's proposal involves generating profits through stripping the company of its assets and shutting it down. Fourth, even if New England's current product has been made obsolete by new technologies and fiber optic cables, the possibility of a more profitable future through re-engineering the company to keep pace with a new economy needs to be considered. Fifth, if such re-engineering would not be viable given required investments and the company's core competence, there remains the possibility of retaining profitable divisions while shutting down only loss-making units.
Given these facts, the real principle at stake is whether shareholder value lies in ongoing wealth generation or merely in short-term profitability. The movie informs us that the company has been generating losses for ten years. Nevertheless, shareholders still need to evaluate whether the company holds any prospect of delivering value in the future—either through trimming operations, investing in new products and technology, or securing new management.
Considering the available facts, the most promising course of action appears to be either investing in acquiring the skills and technology to enter the fiber optic cable market segment or selling off loss-making businesses while retaining profitable ones. However, such action must also entail installing new management. This is critical to any business or investment judgment, as it is evident that the current owners and managers are too steeped in family tradition and have been unable to keep pace with a changing market in a timely manner. This is apparent not only in the fact that the company has been operating at a loss for ten years, but also in Jorgenson's plea to the shareholders.
Jorgenson bases his argument more on attacking Garfield and sentimentality than on any concrete business plan. He offers no proof that the company has a bright future, declaring instead: "murder in the name of maximizing shareholder value...dollar bills where a conscience should be." In contrast, Garfield presents blunt business talk rooted in financial realities. The two characters represent fundamentally opposed worldviews: shareholder value as long-term wealth creation versus shareholder value as immediate profit extraction.
Jorgenson makes one genuinely valid point when he states: "he creates nothing, builds nothing, runs nothing, and in his wake, leaves nothing but a blizzard of paper to cover the pain." This observation highlights that corporate strategy should produce tangible value, not merely financial manipulation. To this extent, any decision to accept Garfield's liquidation proposal should only be taken if the first course of action—strategic reinvestment and management reform—is deemed completely unviable. In such an event, the deployment of Schumpeter's principle of creative destruction would be acceptable, as neither shareholder nor employee interests would be served long-term by a company that is "getting an increasing share of a shrinking market...stock, one-sixth of what it was ten years ago."
"When liquidation becomes the only rational choice"
"Film's critique of short-term corporate raiding tactics"
You’re 70% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.