亚色在线观看_亚洲人成a片高清在线观看不卡_亚洲中文无码亚洲人成频_免费在线黄片,69精品视频九九精品视频,美女大黄三级,人人干人人g,全新av网站每日更新播放,亚洲三及片,wwww无码视频,亚洲中文字幕无码一区在线

????機(jī)構(gòu)投資人理事會(huì)（The council of Institutional Investors）是一個(gè)由基金和經(jīng)理人組成的協(xié)會(huì)，其成員管理的資產(chǎn)超過(guò)3萬(wàn)億美元,。該協(xié)會(huì)的常務(wù)理事安?葉爾格表示：“我們不認(rèn)同雙重股份或創(chuàng)始人擁有過(guò)大控制權(quán),。我們認(rèn)為‘一股一票’是股東的基本權(quán)利?！?/p>

????目前全球都認(rèn)可的關(guān)于企業(yè)良好治理的基本原則是由經(jīng)濟(jì)合作與發(fā)展組織（OECD）制定的,，該原則在2004年被美國(guó)和29個(gè)其他國(guó)家采用。谷歌,、Facebook和凱雷投資集團(tuán)所采取的措施都違反了其中的兩三條有關(guān)股東權(quán)利的細(xì)則,。有些人可能會(huì)說(shuō)：“那又如何，朋友之間還有違反原則的時(shí)候呢,?！?/p>

????但是這個(gè)問(wèn)題的影響不僅僅在于經(jīng)濟(jì)利益。聯(lián)邦通訊委員會(huì)（FCC）日前針對(duì)一起由于疏忽導(dǎo)致的個(gè)人信息泄露案對(duì)谷歌處以2.5萬(wàn)美元的罰款,。谷歌的一位發(fā)言人在電子郵件中寫道：“這是個(gè)錯(cuò)誤……但我們相信,，我們沒有做任何違法的事?！倍?lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(huì)（FTC）可能也已準(zhǔn)備好對(duì)谷歌發(fā)起反壟斷訴訟,。特別是眼下美國(guó)的監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)顯然缺乏保護(hù)老百姓的隱私信息免遭谷歌或其它科技公司泄露的意愿，那么,，我們真的能把這么大的權(quán)力放心地交給谷歌的創(chuàng)始人嗎,？

????然而有誰(shuí)能夠制衡谷歌的權(quán)力呢？葉爾格說(shuō),，有四種方法可以使公開市場(chǎng)停止向谷歌,、Facebook和凱雷等公司投資,。首先股票交易所可以拒絕這些公司上市；其次,，各股票指數(shù)可以拒絕把它們包含在內(nèi),；再次，投資銀行可以拒絕承銷他們的股票,；最后,，拿別人的錢用來(lái)投資的機(jī)構(gòu)，也就是所謂的信托機(jī)構(gòu),，可以拒絕對(duì)這些公司進(jìn)行投資,。

????不過(guò)懷特海德指出，除非投行拒絕承銷這類沒有投票權(quán)的特殊股,，否則企業(yè)還會(huì)繼續(xù)發(fā)行它們,。

????蒙克斯和懷德海德都認(rèn)為，信托機(jī)構(gòu)有義務(wù)保護(hù)客戶委托給他們的資產(chǎn),。因此,，考慮到這些特殊股票的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，信托機(jī)構(gòu)不應(yīng)對(duì)這些股票進(jìn)行投資,。不過(guò)根據(jù)從谷歌獲得的初步文件來(lái)看,，像黑石（Blackrock）和富達(dá)（Fidelity）這樣的知名投行顯然都把大量的信托資產(chǎn)投資到了谷歌身上。而且至少?gòu)哪壳皝?lái)看,，其他信托機(jī)構(gòu)也還沒有攪入谷歌的投票權(quán)問(wèn)題,。

????懷特海德表示，一股一票制“從心理上看是自由企業(yè)制度的一個(gè)重要部分”,，它有助于鼓勵(lì)市場(chǎng)參與,。

????侵蝕這種信任會(huì)削弱所有股票的市場(chǎng)需求。

????谷歌的幾位創(chuàng)始人把自己當(dāng)成了超脫于資本市場(chǎng)體系責(zé)任之外的先行者,。不過(guò)這里我們不妨引用谷歌自己的座右銘：“不作惡也能賺錢”,。如果谷歌的創(chuàng)始人真想“不作惡”，那么對(duì)資本市場(chǎng)的責(zé)任就不應(yīng)成為障礙,。

????本文作者Eleanor Bloxham是董事會(huì)咨詢機(jī)構(gòu)價(jià)值聯(lián)盟和企業(yè)管理管理聯(lián)盟（The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance）的CEO,。

????譯者：樸成奎

????The Council of Institutional Investors, an association representing funds and managers with over $3 trillion in assets under management, is "no fan of dual class shares or entrenched founders. We believe in one share one vote as a fundamental right of shareholders," says Ann Yerger, the council's executive director.

????The baseline for good governance worldwide is the OECD governance principles, which were adopted in 2004 by the U.S.and 29 other countries. The actions at Google, Facebook and Carlyle all fly in the face of sections two and three of those principles, which describe the rights of shareholders. Some may argue, "So what -- what is a lapse in principles among friends?"

????But this issue goes beyond dollars and cents. The FCC gave Google a $25,000 wrist-slap for an inadvertent drive-by theft of personal information. A Google spokesperson said in an email, "It was a mistake … but we believe we did nothing illegal." The FTC may be readying an anti-trust case, but can we really trust Google's founders with this kind of power, especially given the apparent weak will of regulators to protect individuals from Google's and other tech firms' privacy breaches?

????Who could check Google's authority? Yerger says there are four ways to halt public market investment in the Googles, Facebooks, and Carlyles of the world. First off, the exchanges could refuse to list them. Or the indexes could refuse to include them. The investment banks could refuse to underwrite them. And those who invest other people's money -- so-called fiduciaries -- could refuse to invest in them.

????Unless investment banks refuse to underwrite these kinds of shares, as they should, companies will continue to use them, Whitehead says.

????Both Monks and Whitehead agree that fiduciaries, who are obligated to protect the invested dollars entrusted to them, should not invest in these kinds of stocks due to the risks involved. But firms like Blackrock and Fidelity certainly are investing large amounts of other people's money in Google, according to the tech giant's preliminary proxy filing. And for now, it appears that other fiduciaries are not engaging with Google on the voting rights issue either.

????One share, one vote is a "psychologically important part of the free enterprise system," which helps to encourage market participation, Whitehead says.

????The erosion of that trust weakens the market for all stocks.

????Google founders see themselves as pioneers in stripping accountability from the capital markets system. But, to quote the company's own motto, you can make money without doing evil. If Google's founders intend to do good, accountability should be no obstacle.

????Eleanor Bloxham is CEO of The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance (http://thevaluealliance.com), a board advisory firm.