評論
打印
Business
商業
Corporate governance in America
美國的企業管治
Heating up
逐漸升溫
Shareholders are ever more willing to vote against management
股東永遠愿意對管理者投反對票
TWENTY years ago Bob Monks bought an ad in the Wall Street Journal declaring members of the board of Sears, to which he hoped (in vain) to be elected, "non-performing assets". Nowadays, shareholder activists just create a website. On April 2nd Dan Loeb, a hedge-fund boss, launched valueyahoo.com, which brims with proposals for reviving the struggling web firm. Mr Loeb is trying to get himself elected to Yahoo!'s board against the wishes of its managers-a fight that could be the highlight of the annual corporate proxy season that is getting under way. He may win the shareholder vote, if Yahoo! does not strike a deal with him first.
20年前，鮑勃.蒙克斯在華爾街日報刊登了一則廣告，宣稱西爾斯百貨的董事會成員是"不良資產"，在此之前，他渴望被選中的成為其中之一，可惜沒有。現今，股東維權主義者只需創建一個網站即可。4月2號，一個對沖基金的老板丹?勒布，建立一個valueyahoo.com網站，公布了各種拯救雅虎這不景氣網絡公司的方案。勒布先生正嘗試違背公司管理層的意愿，令自己被選進雅虎的董事會。一場可能成為公司年度股東大會期間的焦點戰爭正準備打響。一旦雅虎沒有預先和他達成協議，他可能贏得股東們的選票。
Several hedge funds are urging shareholders to give boards a good kicking. Starboard Value has nominated five candidates to the board of AOL, another ailing web firm. On April 2nd Pershing Square added a seventh candidate to the alternative slate of directors it has nominated to the board of Canadian Pacific Railway. Shareholder activism is "getting back to normal after the financial crisis of 2008," says Peter Harkins of D.F. King, a firm that advises participants in proxy contests.
幾個對沖基金正說服股東們給董事會一個下馬威。（美國對沖基金）Starboard Value已經給另一間衰落的網絡公司——美國在線（AOL）的董事會里提名了五名候選人。4月2號，波欣廣場（資本管理公司）在已經提命的加拿大太平洋鐵路公司董事會候選人中增加第七位候選人作為董事的替代人。"股東激進主義在2008年經濟危機后現正回歸到正常。"D.F. King的皮得.哈更斯說，D.F. King是一間為代理權爭奪的參與者提供咨詢的公司。
.
It is not just hedge funds that are flexing their shareholderly muscles. Pension funds are at it, too. On March 27th it was reported that Goldman Sachs had made peace with the pension fund of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), which had proposed a resolution to split the roles of chief executive and chairman, both of which are held by Lloyd Blankfein. The bank convinced AFSCME to withdraw its proposal by agreeing to appoint a "lead director" to keep Mr Blankfein in check. The union has made similar proposals at several firms, including JPMorgan Chase, whose boss AFSCME's president calls the "most dangerous man in America". Rupert Murdoch, the embattled chairman and chief executive of News Corporation, will face a motion that he surrender his chairmanship to someone independent.
不僅僅是對沖基金顯示了他們的股東權力。養老基金同樣如此。在3月27號，據報道，高盛投資公司與美國養老基金會以及美國工會達成協議，工會在為分離首席執行官與董事會提出了解決方案，而此前兩個職位都是由貝蘭克梵擔任的。高盛銀行同意任命一個"首席董事"以限制貝蘭克梵，以此說服美國工會會撤銷它的方案。該聯合會在幾間公司都采用了類似的方法，包括JP摩根大通——美國工會主席稱他們的老板為"美國最危險的男人"。魯伯特.默多克，一個新聞公司備受爭議的董事會主席兼首席執行官，將面臨一項移交他的主席身份給某個獨立人的變動。
Two other issues are expected to attract scrutiny from shareholders this year. One is bosses' pay. Investors will show "a little more backbone" in curbing it, "having rather fluffed it last year", predicts Anne Simpson, who oversees the corporate-governance activities of CalPERS, a giant pension fund for California's public employees. Many boards struggled to win 70% support for pay packages last year, the first time such votes were required. This year, several could lose the vote (which is not binding) unless they have linked pay more explicitly to performance, reckons Paul Hodgson of GMI Ratings, a firm that measures corporate governance.
另外兩個問題今年將有望得到股東們的嚴格審查。一個是領導者的工資。投資者將在處理這一問題上顯示更大的決心，"去年已經付出了很多"，辛普森組織認為，該組織負責監督加州公務員基金——這一巨型的加利福尼亞公務員的養老基金的管理活動。許多董事會通過抗爭，去年在薪酬福利當面贏得了約70%支持，第一次被要求進行這樣的投票。今年，一些董事會可能會失去票數，（那些曾處于中立的票）除非他們把工資與績效明確地掛鉤起來。GMI評級機構的保羅-霍奇森這樣指出，GMI是一間評估公司治理的公司。
Perhaps the most contentious resolutions will be those demanding that firms be more transparent about their political spending, and requiring boards to ensure that this money is used in the interests of shareholders, not managers. This effort is being fiercely resisted. The US Chamber of Commerce argues that these resolutions, which mostly come from shareholders who are also trade unions or social activists, are not in the best interests of the firms concerned. Jim Copland of the Manhattan Institute, a think-tank, says that "some of these proposals may serve primarily to chill corporate political speech broadly, including on issues that most diversified shareholders-as distinguished from the proposals' sponsors-might prefer that the corporation's views be heard."
可能最有爭議的解決方案是那些要求公司在關于政治方面的花費更加透明，且同時要求董事會確保這些錢被用到符合股東的利益上而不是管理層。這一方案被強烈地抵制。美國商會認為這些解決方案，大多數是由來自工會或者是社會活動家的股東們提出，方案并不符合公司所關注的最大利益。一個曼哈頓研究所的智囊團，吉姆.科普蘭認為"其中的一些建議中的可能主要是為廣泛地凍結公司政治性言論"，其中包括關于股東多樣化的問題，有別于建議贊助商，這些股東們可能更喜歡公司的意見被聽到。
Well, maybe. But, as with the other issues on the proxy this year, that is for shareholders to decide.
也許是這樣。但就像今年董事會中的其他問題一樣，這都將由股東們去決定。
