????谷歌（Google）的幾位創(chuàng)始人近日公布了一項(xiàng)計(jì)劃，以便他們長(zhǎng)期牢牢掌握對(duì)公司的控制權(quán),。

????谷歌將在董事會(huì)的許可下向現(xiàn)有股東發(fā)行一種沒(méi)有投票權(quán)的新股,。這項(xiàng)計(jì)劃可能將會(huì)稀釋股東未來(lái)的投票權(quán),，不過(guò)由于谷歌的幾位創(chuàng)始人目前掌握了公司大多數(shù)的投票權(quán)，因此這項(xiàng)計(jì)劃并不需要征得股東們的同意,。就在谷歌宣布該計(jì)劃的同時(shí),，這幾位創(chuàng)始人正在不停拋售股票。

????谷歌創(chuàng)始人推出的這項(xiàng)計(jì)劃不僅對(duì)谷歌股東來(lái)說(shuō)十分重要,，就連谷歌產(chǎn)品的用戶,，以及其他股票的持有人（無(wú)論是直接持股、通過(guò)共同基金購(gòu)股,、或參加了退休儲(chǔ)蓄計(jì)劃的人）都應(yīng)該引起關(guān)注,。

????除了谷歌之外，還有一些科技公司（如Facebook）和金融機(jī)構(gòu)【如凱雷投資集團(tuán)（Carlyle）】也想獲得公開(kāi)市場(chǎng)融資,，但同時(shí)又不想給予股東某種機(jī)制制約創(chuàng)始人,。谷歌CEO拉里?佩奇在4月12日與分析師的電話會(huì)議上毫不掩飾谷歌收緊投票權(quán)的做法對(duì)其他公司起了示范作用。他說(shuō)：“鑒于谷歌的成功,，這種雙重管理架構(gòu)現(xiàn)在能在較新的科技企業(yè)里成為某種標(biāo)準(zhǔn)也就不足為奇了,。”

????但并不是所有人都認(rèn)同“如果大家都在做這件事,，那這件事一定是個(gè)好點(diǎn)子”的想法,。即便是那些健忘的人也還記得世紀(jì)之交的科技泡沫以及之后的泡沫大破裂，也肯定還記得至今還令我們苦苦掙扎的經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī),。

????谷歌的幾位創(chuàng)始人在一封致股東的信中列出了各種理由來(lái)為新方案辯解,。他們抨擊了由股東管理公司的模式，認(rèn)為避免股東管理是讓公司專注于長(zhǎng)期發(fā)展的最好方式,。

????創(chuàng)始人這番“專注于長(zhǎng)期”的論述非常聰明,。說(shuō)到底，沒(méi)有人愿意說(shuō),，我們只相信短期,，長(zhǎng)期就算做壞了也無(wú)所謂。人們或許確實(shí)會(huì)為了自己的短期私利而做出短視行為,，但是明目張膽地說(shuō)出這番話卻會(huì)不可避免地招致關(guān)于暗箱操作的抨擊,。

????因此，谷歌創(chuàng)始人的論斷能夠說(shuō)服一些人并不值得奇怪,。哥倫比亞大學(xué)法學(xué)院（Columbia Law School）的羅伯?杰克森教授認(rèn)為,，谷歌的股東們相信谷歌的幾位創(chuàng)始人和他們創(chuàng)造價(jià)值的能力。盡管股東可能希望隨著時(shí)間的推移,，創(chuàng)始人們會(huì)逐漸放松對(duì)公司的控制,，但“他們購(gòu)買(mǎi)股票的時(shí)候還是很理智的?！?/p>

????科技公司創(chuàng)始人中江郎才盡者也大有人在,。LENS Investments的董事長(zhǎng)鮑伯?蒙克斯在一封電子郵件中寫(xiě)道：“谷歌絕對(duì)是一家依托于天才的公司?，F(xiàn)在的問(wèn)題是，谷歌在‘社交市場(chǎng)’上的失敗是否意味著就像寶麗萊（Polaroid）的創(chuàng)始人艾爾文?蘭德的下場(chǎng)那樣,，谷歌的天才時(shí)代即將結(jié)束,？還是像比爾?蓋茨一樣，一邊推出Office辦公套件,，一邊召集高級(jí)員工繼續(xù)發(fā)展互聯(lián)網(wǎng)技術(shù)來(lái)淘汰自己的產(chǎn)品……為了讓外部股東能重新評(píng)估被‘鎖定’了的投票控制權(quán)，必須有某種機(jī)制被建立起來(lái),?！?/p>

????已退休的高盛（Goldman Sachs）董事長(zhǎng)約翰?懷特海德表示，他強(qiáng)烈認(rèn)同“一股一票”的投票機(jī)制,?！坝行┕竟芾韺拥墓ぷ髯龅煤艹錾?duì)于他們來(lái)說(shuō),，不需要特別的投票安排,。而對(duì)于那些工作表現(xiàn)糟糕的管理者來(lái)說(shuō)，需要通過(guò)股東積極投票來(lái)保證他們的工作處于正軌,。谷歌或其它公司都需要特殊的投票安排,，這一點(diǎn)沒(méi)什么好爭(zhēng)論的?！?/p>

????Google's founders announced a plan designed to perpetuate their ironclad grip on the long-term governance of the company.

????With the board's blessing, the company will issue a new non-voting class of shares to existing shareholders. Because the founders currently hold majority-voting rights, the plan does not require that shareholders give their consent to the dilution of their future voting power. The action comes amid ongoing stock sales by Google's (GOOG) founders.

????While this edict by the founders is important to Google stockholders, users of Google's products, and owners of other stocks -- outright or in mutual funds or retirements savings plans -- should also beware.

????Other technology firms, like Facebook, and financial firms, like Carlyle, are attempting to gain access to public market funding without giving shareholders a mechanism to keep the founders accountable. In a conference call with analysts on April 12, Google CEO Larry Page took credit for a similar lack of voting rights at other companies. "Given Google's success, it's unsurprising this type of dual-class governance structure is now somewhat standard among newer technology companies," he said.

????But not everyone buys the "if everyone is doing it, it must be a good idea" argument. Even those with short memories can recall the tech boom and bust at the turn of the last decade, or the financial crisis we are still digging out of.

????Google's founders marshaled the best possible arguments for their plan in a letter to shareholders. Taking a swipe at shareholder governance, they argued that evading shareholder mandates was the best way to keep the company focused on the long term.

????The founder's invocation of the long term was genius. After all, no one in her right mind goes around saying we believe in the short term and the long term be damned. People may act in favor of their own short-term selfish interests but saying so is an inevitable invitation to cries of foul play.

????So it isn't too surprising that the founders' arguments have convinced some. With Google, shareholders are buying their founders and their ability to create value, says Rob Jackson, a professor at Columbia Law School. While shareholders may have expected the founders to loosen their control over time, they "went into the stock with their eyes open," he says.

????However, many founders do falter. "Google is definitely a genius-based company," wrote Bob Monks, chair of LENS Investments, in an email. "The question needs to be raised is their failure in the 'social market' an indication of the end of genius, a la Edwin Land, Polaroid's founder. Or is it a hiccup in the style of Bill Gates who launched the Office Suite at the same time as gathering his senior staff to obsolesce the whole technology by going to the web…. Some mechanism must exist to permit outside shareholder reevaluation of the 'locked up' voting control," he wrote.

????John Whitehead, retired co-chair of Goldman Sachs (GS), says that he is a strong believer in one share one vote. "Some managements do a good job. And those who do a good job don't need special voting arrangements," he says. "And those who do a bad job need active voting by shareholders to keep them in check. There is no argument to be made for special voting arrangements at Google or anywhere else," he says.