[tptacek]

No, he was implying that the reaction of shareholders is an acid test of ethics: that if you can't even tell your shareholders about something iffy, it's very unlikely that it's ethical. But he didn't say or imply that the opinion of shareholders completely disposed of the question.

[justratsinacoat]

>But he didn't [...] imply that the opinion of shareholders completely disposed of the question

Quite so! What he said was 'their having committed fraud to bump up the numbers, y'know, as you do, was to please shareholders at quarterly meetings'.

"Business ethics", at this level, revolves around the shareholders, and the comment telegraphs this: as you say, shareholder reaction is the acid test for appropriate behaviour. Nor, indeed, does the opinion of shareholders dispose of the question. Yet, it is fear of shareholder disapproval that drives both the cover-up of fraud (potential jailtime probably helps with this) and the instantiation of said fraud in order to keep numbers up in order to placate shareholders.

But, again, you're right. I'll keep my original comment up, but I should have put ""Business ethics" is all about shareholders, eh? This explains so much...".

[kolinko]

>Quite so! What he said was 'their having committed fraud to bump up the numbers, y'know, as you do, was to please shareholders at quarterly meetings'."

Check the thread history, he said exactly the opposite:

> > > if you wouldn't feel comfortable getting on the phone and telling your share holders what you are doing then its probably wrong.