Reference no: EM13147668

Was Michael Milken More Friend or Foe of Financial Markets? 

Was Michael Milken a friend or foe to the financial markets, is definitely a question that sparks much debate. I tend to take a utilitarian approach to most things in life and this question is not an exception. While there are always lines in life that should not be crossed, I do think that if something is going to benefit more people than it will hinder it most likely is something that should be done. With that said my position is that Michael Milken was a friend to the financial markets.

Michael Milken was an innovator in the financial world. He took the path less traveled and helped to jumpstart thousands of businesses in multiple industries that might not have been given a chance otherwise. This led to thousands if not millions of jobs being created helping to grow the U.S. economy. Not only did he take on risk that most others would not, he created financial tools that had a great impact in the world of finance and are still in use today.  

Along with his contributions to the financial markets during his time at Drexel, his contributions to charity and medical research over the years have been great. The work that his foundation has done to promote community and learning in schools has undoubtedly helped countless numbers of people and the cancer research that the foundation has funded has assisted in the medical community making great strides in treating cancer.

With that said Michael Milken has obviously contributed a great amount of money, time and resources, to improving the financial markets, the U.S. economy, charity and medical research. He has made a positive impact in all areas and still continues as a philanthropist and speaker continuously spreading his wealth and knowledge.

However, my opinion is not based solely on the great things that Michael Milken has done. The downfall of Michael Milken seems sketchy to me at best. He originally had 98 charges, to include insider trading, fraud and racketeering. However, according to a multitude of lawyers that have studied this case there was little to no evidence that supported any of these charges. The six charges that Milken did plead guilty to were upgraded to felonies, when prior to his case these would have been trivial offenses. According to those who worked with him, Milken might not have liked the rules and regulations that the government handed down but he would follow them.  

Overall, this is all a matter of perception. What one might consider ethical another will consider unethical it all depends on how someone looks at things. In my opinion, again using a utilitarian approach, I think that all the good Michael Milken contributed to financial markets and to society, outweighs any of the negative things he was accused of or possibly did. If there were stronger evidence to back up what he was charged with my opinion might be different. However, with little to no evidence for the charges and with what he did plead guilty to being trumped up to felonies for effect, I don't believe he did anything that had a substantially negative impact on the world of finance.

Michael Milken was the king of the stocks back in the 1980s and early 90s, but that doesn't mean he was looking out for the best interest of those around him. Personally, I believe he was a foe in this industry. Even though he helped other companies make millions, he was doing it wrongfully. Essentially Milken got caught and did time for his misbehavior in the finance world.

            Ethically, I believe he was only looking out for himself and in the long run but got bit in the butt when he ended up getting caught. He was doing what any other finance professional was told to do, which was to gain money and respect, yet he was doing it illegally. Once Milken was caught, it put the finance industry in a magnify glass to make sure everything was being done perfectly and by the book.

            Milken was making millions a year, he approximately made over $1 billion dollars in a four year period and was living the high life. He was also making many charitable donations to prostate cancer, but in actuality that was stolen money. So even though it made him look good to donate to charity, it technically wasn't his money to begin with. Moral sensitivity (recognizing the presence of an ethical issue) is the first step in ethical decision making because we can't solve a moral problem unless we first know that one exists. I believe Milken didn't even know he was ethically doing something wrong or he wouldn't have gone as far as he did.

Problem recognition is something that requires that we consider how our behavior affects others, identify possible courses of action, and determine the each potential strategy. Empathy and perspective skills are essential to this component of moral action. If we understand how others might feel or react, we are more sensitive to potential negative effects of our choices and can better predict the likely outcomes of each option. Milken kept going with all his stock market escapades well over a decade so in the end I don't believe he cared for anybody but himself.

Finally, paying attention to our emotions can be an important clue that we are faced with an ethical dilemma. Moral emotions are part of our makeup as humans. These feelings are triggered even when we do not have a personal stake in an event. Even though Milken was charged with many counts of felonies, after he got out he still contributed to cancer research. If only he would have been trust worthy the entire time, I would have never considered him a foe.